More Proof that it's Getting Warmer---Fast

[Threegoofs]

I confess it's just my inference. By fortunate happenstance, many of my good friends are in the hard sciences. My remark was based on their comments to me, which they are comfortable in saying represent the views of their colleagues. There's no advantage in an academic career in taking up the issue, so no one does, but they all snicker. The only publicly verifiable episode that I can cite is that it was the Royal Astronomical Society, a heavyweight's heavyweight among scientific organizations, that chose to publish the latest work of Professor Svensmark. That is work that points to the awful, whining end of warmist orthodoxy.eace

The RAS isn't a 'heavyweights heavyweight' in the least bit. Maybe it is among astronomers. Generally, the National Academy of Sciences or the AAAS, or the Royal Society would be much more representative of general science.

But what does the President of the RAS think about climate change? Well, the head of the RAS ripped into a guy publicly denying AGW was a threat.

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-pres...ndemns-nasa-chiefs-comments-on-global-warming

So I guess that pretty much blows your last comments out of the water,eh?

 

[Jack Hays]

The RAS isn't a 'heavyweights heavyweight' in the least bit. Maybe it is among astronomers. Generally, the National Academy of Sciences or the AAAS, or the Royal Society would be much more representative of general science.

But what does the President of the RAS think about climate change? Well, the head of the RAS ripped into a guy publicly denying AGW was a threat.

RAS Press Release PN 07/32: RAS President Condemns NASA Chief's Comments on Global Warming

So I guess that pretty much blows your last comments out of the water,eh?

Yawn. Bureaucratic positioning for funding decisions. How naive are you?eace

 

[Jack Hays]

The RAS isn't a 'heavyweights heavyweight' in the least bit. Maybe it is among astronomers. Generally, the National Academy of Sciences or the AAAS, or the Royal Society would be much more representative of general science.

But what does the President of the RAS think about climate change? Well, the head of the RAS ripped into a guy publicly denying AGW was a threat.

RAS Press Release PN 07/32: RAS President Condemns NASA Chief's Comments on Global Warming

So I guess that pretty much blows your last comments out of the water,eh?

Looks like a pretty good pedigree to me.:mrgreen:

The Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) is a learned society that began as the Astronomical Society of London in 1820 to support astronomical research (mainly carried on at the time by 'gentleman astronomers' rather than professionals). It became the Royal Astronomical Society in 1831 on receiving its Royal Charter from William IV. A Supplemental Charter in 1915 opened up the fellowship to women. It is the UK adhering organisation to the International Astronomical Union and a member of the Science Council, and encourages and promotes the study of astronomy, solar-system science, geophysics and closely related branches of science.[1] Meetings are held in Burlington House, in Piccadilly, London and across the United Kingdom (UK). They are involved in the production of astronomical journals and periodicals. The society has over 3000 members,[1] around a third of whom live outside the UK. In addition, those members of the public who have an interest in astronomy and geophysics and wish to support the work of the society may become Friends of the RAS.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yawn. Bureaucratic positioning for funding decisions. How naive are you?eace

Can't get anything past a sharp cookie like you.

I guess you're upset that the Presiddmt of your 'heavyweight of heavyweights' organization (which I have a feeling you only heard of today), is lying in public statements.

 

[Jack Hays]

Can't get anything past a sharp cookie like you.

I guess you're upset that the Presiddmt of your 'heavyweight of heavyweights' organization (which I have a feeling you only heard of today), is lying in public statements.

Your unmerited arrogance remains your weakness. Slink away now, beaten and humiliated.eace

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I confess it's just my inference. By fortunate happenstance, many of my good friends are in the hard sciences. My remark was based on their comments to me, which they are comfortable in saying represent the views of their colleagues. There's no advantage in an academic career in taking up the issue, so no one does, but they all snicker. The only publicly verifiable episode that I can cite is that it was the Royal Astronomical Society, a heavyweight's heavyweight among scientific organizations, that chose to publish the latest work of Professor Svensmark. That is work that points to the awful, whining end of warmist orthodoxy.eace

So...if "most of the entire scientific community regards climate science as an embarrassment", why is it the scientific community so overwhelmingly supports the climate scientists' findings that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is very real? Particularly given that many of those scientists - from geologists to oceanologists to botanists to etymologists and most of the rest - work with data that is directly affected by the climate?

Oh, and one more thing - I looked up Svensmark, and I would remind you that simply because the Royal Astronomical Society chooses to publish a not-so-well-thought-out paper doesn't diminish one whit the weight of the worldwide scientific community as a whole. I looked it up before, and I could find precisely zero national scientific organizations based in first-world nations (or nations that are otherwise highly industrialized) that disagreed with AGW. To use Svensmark is committing the logical error of cherry-picking.

 

[Jack Hays]

So...if "most of the entire scientific community regards climate science as an embarrassment", why is it the scientific community so overwhelmingly supports the climate scientists' findings that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is very real? Particularly given that many of those scientists - from geologists to oceanologists to botanists to etymologists and most of the rest - work with data that is directly affected by the climate?

Oh, and one more thing - I looked up Svensmark, and I would remind you that simply because the Royal Astronomical Society chooses to publish a not-so-well-thought-out paper doesn't diminish one whit the weight of the worldwide scientific community as a whole. I looked it up before, and I could find precisely zero national scientific organizations based in first-world nations (or nations that are otherwise highly industrialized) that disagreed with AGW. To use Svensmark is committing the logical error of cherry-picking.

I'll let Svensmark speak for himself.


Some people, including your critic Florian Freistetter on ScienceBlog, seem to think that physics is a democratic process and what matters is to count how many papers favour or disfavour each hypothesis. That of course is nonsense. All that really signifies is the evidence from observations and experiments, and how a theory stands up to attempts to falsify it. Remember Einstein’s comment on the pamphlet Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (1931) – “If I were wrong, one would be enough”.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays strongly affect the climate offers a serious challenge to the more fashionable hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases have been the main cause of climate changes. So it does not surprise me that many people try to falsify it. In fact it’s quite flattering that they go to so much trouble, when one good outcome (for them) should be enough, and in my opinion no such paper has been produced so far.

Freistetter suggests that all the recent papers say I’m wrong. That shows he is not very familiar with the climate physics literature. I think he has gone to some trouble to select papers against the cosmic-ray theory and ignore the favourable ones.

There are two main topics in the criticism, (1) the question of whether detectable changes in aerosols affects cloud microphysics after sudden “Forbush decreases” in cosmic-ray intensities. Since if this is the case it shows that variations in the nucleation of small aerosols (3 nm) can grow into cloud condensation nuclei ( > 50 nm) in the real atmosphere in direct contrast to results from numerical models. Future experiments will of course be able to clear up these questions, and (2) interpretation of the CLOUD experiment at CERN. My co-author for The Chilling Stars, Nigel Calder, has dealt with both topics on his blog, and I suggest that readers go there for more information …eace

 

[Threegoofs]

You're a great cutter AND paster. Congrats.

He may be correct. Give it a decade. Multiple confirmatory papers, etc. that's how science works.

But chances are, he's wrong.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I'll let Svensmark speak for himself.


Some people, including your critic Florian Freistetter on ScienceBlog, seem to think that physics is a democratic process and what matters is to count how many papers favour or disfavour each hypothesis. That of course is nonsense. All that really signifies is the evidence from observations and experiments, and how a theory stands up to attempts to falsify it. Remember Einstein’s comment on the pamphlet Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (1931) – “If I were wrong, one would be enough”.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays strongly affect the climate offers a serious challenge to the more fashionable hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases have been the main cause of climate changes. So it does not surprise me that many people try to falsify it. In fact it’s quite flattering that they go to so much trouble, when one good outcome (for them) should be enough, and in my opinion no such paper has been produced so far.

Freistetter suggests that all the recent papers say I’m wrong. That shows he is not very familiar with the climate physics literature. I think he has gone to some trouble to select papers against the cosmic-ray theory and ignore the favourable ones.

There are two main topics in the criticism, (1) the question of whether detectable changes in aerosols affects cloud microphysics after sudden “Forbush decreases” in cosmic-ray intensities. Since if this is the case it shows that variations in the nucleation of small aerosols (3 nm) can grow into cloud condensation nuclei ( > 50 nm) in the real atmosphere in direct contrast to results from numerical models. Future experiments will of course be able to clear up these questions, and (2) interpretation of the CLOUD experiment at CERN. My co-author for The Chilling Stars, Nigel Calder, has dealt with both topics on his blog, and I suggest that readers go there for more information …eace

You really can't let Svensmark go, huh? Here's some findings that directly address his claims:

More recently, Laken et al (2012) found that new high quality satellite data show that the El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that Galactic Cosmic Rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically-significant influence on changes in cloud cover whatsoever.
Lockwood (2012) conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated. Lockwood's review also highlighted the strength of evidence in favor of the solar influence on regional climates.

You mentioned that some people tend to think that science is a democracy, and you're right about that. Heinlein once said "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?" I think you and I would both agree that scientific fact does not depend upon consensus or the lack thereof.

That said, when 98% of climatologist PhD's (the vast majority of whom are paid by cash-strapped universities and governments) say one thing, and the 2% of climatologists (who are often paid by some of the richest corporations in human history) say something else, AND the 98% wish they themselves were wrong while the 2% don't want to be wrong...

...these say something to me. Follow the money, follow the motive. If a climatologist just wants money, he can go to work for Exxon and make a heck of a lot more than he can as a GS-09 working for the government or as a lecturer at, say, Southern Illinois University.

Follow the money, follow the motive.

One more thing - say you're a scientist, and your scientific data tell you one thing, while your boss is telling you that if you want to keep your job, you'll have to publicly state that your data tell you something else. Which do you choose? Your job? Or your professional integrity? Especially when lives are at stake?

Follow the money, follow the motive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL...

Quoting a wiki summary...

LOL...

LOL...

Now I haven't read this yet, but here is the paper cited:

A Decade of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer:
Is a Solar–Cloud Link Detectable?

Skipping to the conclusion:

Conclusions

An analysis of the first decade of monthly time-scale
MODIS cloud anomalies has shown that neither variations
in TSI emissions or the GCR flux are dominantly
responsible for cloud variability at global or local (geographic)
scales at any altitude level. Although correlation
analysis suggests that some statistically significant
correlations between cloud variability and TSI/GCR
variations are present, further investigation of these
relationships revealed that such associations either
broke down during the data period or were likely connected
to internal climate variability and not to solar
activity.

They are not saying they disprove his work...

 

[Jack Hays]

You really can't let Svensmark go, huh? Here's some findings that directly address his claims:

More recently, Laken et al (2012) found that new high quality satellite data show that the El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that Galactic Cosmic Rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically-significant influence on changes in cloud cover whatsoever.
Lockwood (2012) conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated. Lockwood's review also highlighted the strength of evidence in favor of the solar influence on regional climates.

You mentioned that some people tend to think that science is a democracy, and you're right about that. Heinlein once said "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?" I think you and I would both agree that scientific fact does not depend upon consensus or the lack thereof.

That said, when 98% of climatologist PhD's (the vast majority of whom are paid by cash-strapped universities and governments) say one thing, and the 2% of climatologists (who are often paid by some of the richest corporations in human history) say something else, AND the 98% wish they themselves were wrong while the 2% don't want to be wrong...

...these say something to me. Follow the money, follow the motive. If a climatologist just wants money, he can go to work for Exxon and make a heck of a lot more than he can as a GS-09 working for the government or as a lecturer at, say, Southern Illinois University.

Follow the money, follow the motive.

One more thing - say you're a scientist, and your scientific data tell you one thing, while your boss is telling you that if you want to keep your job, you'll have to publicly state that your data tell you something else. Which do you choose? Your job? Or your professional integrity? Especially when lives are at stake?

Follow the money, follow the motive.

Sorry, but it's simply a lie that the skeptics have the money. The warmists have the cash, and guarding it is one of their powerful motivations. As for the rest, you take Heinlein; I'll take Einstein. My work here is done for tonight.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Sorry, but it's simply a lie that the skeptics have the money. The warmists have the cash, and guarding it is one of their powerful motivations. As for the rest, you take Heinlein; I'll take Einstein. My work here is done for tonight.

REALLY? Who stands to lose the most if global warming regulations are put into place? Big Oil! And guess who are the biggest funders of climate science deniers? Big Oil!

Follow the money, follow the motive.

And you never said which you'd choose when told to choose between your paycheck and your professional integrity. I'd really like to hear your answer on that one.

 

[Threegoofs]

REALLY? Who stands to lose the most if global warming regulations are put into place? Big Oil! And guess who are the biggest funders of climate science deniers? Big Oil!

Follow the money, follow the motive.

And you never said which you'd choose when told to choose between your paycheck and your professional integrity. I'd really like to hear your answer on that one.

My guess is is he has neither paychecks or personal integrity...

And to deny that the money isn't on the side of the deniers is like saying the fight against smoking restrictions was done by grassroots activists concerned about freedom and liberty.(that was actually a real argument!)

 

[Lord of Planar]

REALLY? Who stands to lose the most if global warming regulations are put into place? Big Oil! And guess who are the biggest funders of climate science deniers? Big Oil!

Can you prove those contentions?

Politicians and their friends, involved in carbon trading scams, have the most to gain with pressuring legislation on carbon.

Follow the money, follow the motive.

Yes.

How much did Al Gore invest?

How much are politicians granting to AGW research? Remember. Politicians love to control people.

And you never said which you'd choose when told to choose between your paycheck and your professional integrity. I'd really like to hear your answer on that one.

Do you know how many climatologists have been ousted from jobs for not preaching the dogma?


I was reading several of Dr. Benjamin Laken's papers. He doesn't test or disprove Henrik Svensmark's papers or methodology. He looks at the data accumulated by others methods. One of his conclusions I found, are effectively similar to most:

Although this study is able to broadly replicate the
findings of SBS in relation to average LCF variations
(Figure 3), we find no evidence to suggest that these
changes are causally related to CR variations.

His quoted disproof boils down to saying correlation does not equal causation, yet he doesn't peer test the methods used.

 

[Jack Hays]

REALLY? Who stands to lose the most if global warming regulations are put into place? Big Oil! And guess who are the biggest funders of climate science deniers? Big Oil!

Follow the money, follow the motive.

And you never said which you'd choose when told to choose between your paycheck and your professional integrity. I'd really like to hear your answer on that one.

My paycheck was always derived from my integrity.

It's pure lefty agit-prop that industry funds the skeptics to any significant degree. The money is on the warmist side.eace

 

[polgara]

My paycheck was always derived from my integrity.

It's pure lefty agit-prop that industry funds the skeptics to any significant degree. The money is on the warmist side.eace

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

When the POTUS states that our utility bills are necessarily going to skyrocket, I pay attention. I also begin to wonder why this might happen. Then I read that people like Al Gore, one of the wealthiest and also biggest polluters on this planet, has an interest in trading in carbon credits on some new exchange, and it appears that only the very wealthy are going to benefit from this, and the rest of the people are going to do the paying! I can confidently state that plan isn't going to sell well with most of the populace! :thumbdown:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

When the POTUS states that our utility bills are necessarily going to skyrocket, I pay attention. I also begin to wonder why this might happen. Then I read that people like Al Gore, one of the wealthiest and also biggest polluters on this planet, has an interest in trading in carbon credits on some new exchange, and it appears that only the very wealthy are going to benefit from this, and the rest of the people are going to do the paying! I can confidently state that plan isn't going to sell well with most of the populace! :thumbdown:

Don't you love how they have politicized the science out of this area of science.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ah, but that's why I said sixteen years, not fifteen, because the base year is 1997, not 1998, i.e., before the spike. You'll need a different excuse. And I never said you had mentioned climate models; I was merely providing the context for the graphic. I can see why you'd want to avoid discussion of climate models. They're sort of like the epicycles in late Ptolemaic cosmology.:lamo

What? Nov-Dec 1997, once the El Nino event of that year had plenty of time to "gear up"? :lol:
Here's your Hero's graph of the satellite temps in a little better detail than your non-working link. If they started in 1997 it must have been damn late in the year.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2013_v5.6.png


I don't know enough about climate models to discus them intelligently and I doubt you do either, so quit pretending.

 

[Jack Hays]

What? Nov-Dec 1997, once the El Nino event of that year had plenty of time to "gear up"? :lol:
Here's your Hero's graph of the satellite temps in a little better detail than your non-working link. If they started in 1997 it must have been damn late in the year.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2013_v5.6.png


I don't know enough about climate models to discus them intelligently and I doubt you do either, so quit pretending.

1997 it was, and I can't help it if you can't work the link. Argue your point, but don't deny the data.eace

 

[MoSurveyor]

You would have to ask The Economist, that's where the graph appeared. They're usually pretty good.

Unfortunately your link there seemed to be bogus.

 

[MoSurveyor]

1997 it was, and I can't help it if you can't work the link. Argue your point, but don't deny the data.eace

Without the data The Economist is using I can't argue it, now can I?

Did you even bother with the link I gave? Probably not. :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

Unfortunately your link there seemed to be bogus.

Worked for me. Not sure what your problem is.

 

[Jack Hays]

Without the data The Economist is using I can't argue it, now can I?

Did you even bother with the link I gave? Probably not. :roll:

Yes. It supports my point.

 

[polgara]

Don't you love how they have politicized the science out of this area of science.

Good evening, Lord of Planar. :2wave:

One would think that I should be used to reading this :bs by now, huh? Maybe a :drink would help?

 

[MoSurveyor]

Worked for me. Not sure what your problem is.

Tell you what. Since the Economist obviously didn't collect their own data why don't you just cite the credible source they used instead? That will solve the problem. If they're as good as you say then they should list their sources.