Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

[Visbek]

Solar
[h=1]Cool science: NASA Satellites Recreate Solar Eruption in 3-D[/h]The more solar observatories, the merrier: Scientists have developed new models to see how shocks associated with coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, propagate from the Sun — an effort made possible only by combining data from three NASA satellites to produce a much more robust mapping of a CME than any one could do alone.…

And you believe this is relevant because...?

Oh, wait. It's on WUWT. Science! Facts! Computers! NASA!

 

[Jack Hays]

And you believe this is relevant because...?

Oh, wait. It's on WUWT. Science! Facts! Computers! NASA!

I thought it might be of interest to those following this thread.

I note you disappeared from our dialogue (out of embarrassment I suppose) following my #664 and #667.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And you believe this is relevant because...?

Oh, wait. It's on WUWT. Science! Facts! Computers! NASA!

Translation:

Oh dear, I am bothered by the effort to bring to the public new science research!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Words have meaning. I've already cited the passages where the IPCC flatly rejected Svensmark's theories. Yet again, if you do not understand that very simple fact, it's not my problem.



Oh, really?

Tell us all then, what exactly are Svensmark's theories? And how am I mischaracterizing them?

The IPCC is a political body, and though it uses peer reviewed papers, the work itself fails such scrutiny.

 

[longview]

Have you actually read the IPCC's comments on Svensmark, in the 3rd and 5th Reports?

Yes or no?

Yes, I had read section 7 when it came out, but wanted to review.

The variability in atmospheric ionization rates due to
changes in cosmic ray flux can be considered relatively well quantified
(Bazilevskaya et al., 2008), whereas resulting changes in aerosol
nucleation rates are very poorly known (Enghoff and Svensmark, 2008;
Kazil et al., 2008).

This looks like an inconclusive finding.

 

[Visbek]

Yes, I had read section 7 when it came out, but wanted to review.

This looks like an inconclusive finding.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

You cherry-picked ONE SENTENCE from the middle of a full page of material that sounds, to you, like it's "inconclusive?" (I might add, you picked one sentence that briefly summarizes one of Svensmark's papers -- NOT the IPCC's opinion about it.) And that's supposed to prove something?

How many times do I need to show you their conclusion?


5th Report / Physical Science Basis
7.4.6.3 Synthesis
Correlations between cosmic ray flux and observed aerosol or cloud properties are weak and local at best, and do not prove to be robust on the regional or global scale. Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or droplets or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. (Bold added)

Even if you don't agree with the IPCC's conclusion, it is very clear that they do not currently accept Svensmark's theories. There is no doubt about it. I cannot think of any legitimate reason why you fail to accept this.

 

[Jack Hays]

Are you ****ing kidding me?

You cherry-picked ONE SENTENCE from the middle of a full page of material that sounds, to you, like it's "inconclusive?" (I might add, you picked one sentence that briefly summarizes one of Svensmark's papers -- NOT the IPCC's opinion about it.) And that's supposed to prove something?

How many times do I need to show you their conclusion?


5th Report / Physical Science Basis
7.4.6.3 Synthesis
Correlations between cosmic ray flux and observed aerosol or cloud properties are weak and local at best, and do not prove to be robust on the regional or global scale. Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or droplets or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. (Bold added)

Even if you don't agree with the IPCC's conclusion, it is very clear that they do not currently accept Svensmark's theories. There is no doubt about it. I cannot think of any legitimate reason why you fail to accept this.

You can run, but you can't hide.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You can run, but you can't hide.

I notice he is highly dependent on the IPCC, which has a record of modeling failures to sweep under the rug, even warmists who used to drool over the modeling only group, have backed off.

They ignore the Per Decade warming trend failures, to focus on the absurd "warmest year on record" bullcrap.

Dr. Svensmark research is ongoing with several papers published, which means he can't be ignored.

 

[SirGareth]

"It does indicate that we're likely entering a period of cooling." Good. That should definitively determine whether the scientific organizations of the world are right or wrong about global warming. If the Earth cools off in the next few years, then the scientists will revise their theory. If it continues to warm, then the theory will once again be proven.

My prediction: The Earth will continue to warm, just as it has for decades now, and the political blogs will continue to insist that AGW is a hoax. I could be wrong, of course, and we'll know in the next few years.

The problem is that the "warming and cooling" are guessed, not measured, and it's the same usual suspects doing all the guessing. We cannot measure the temperature of the planet in 1/100th of a degree C increments, fiddle our guesses, and say its warmer in time for our next grant.

On top of this there are known decadal and multi-decadal oceanic and solar oscillations to make any shorter term assumptions about which month or year is 1/100 of a degree "hotter" than another.

We need to pay a couple of weather watchers and then just stand down for a hundred years and take a new look at things then.

Too many theories, not enough reality.

 

[Threegoofs]

I notice he is highly dependent on the IPCC, which has a record of modeling failures to sweep under the rug, even warmists who used to drool over the modeling only group, have backed off.

They ignore the Per Decade warming trend failures, to focus on the absurd "warmest year on record" bullcrap.

Dr. Svensmark research is ongoing with several papers published, which means he can't be ignored.

From Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS:

 

[Jack Hays]

From Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS:

Ah yes, Gavin Schmidt, a man of remarkably flexible views.

[h=1]Gavin was for solar forcing of climate before he was against it[/h]Readers may recall when Dr. Gavin Schmidt appeared on a television program with Dr. Roy Spencer, but by Gavin’s cowardly choice, not at the same time. After listing the known causes for climate change aka global warming, Gavin Schmidt said: “We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun. We’ve looked at volcanoes; it’s not…

December 28, 2013 in Global cooling, Global warming, Solar.

 

[SirGareth]

From Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS:

All this is crap data collected from ever-changing methods and the effects of UHIE collected in exapanding urban areas.

On top of this, never trust a graph that doesn't bother to tell you what scales are used.

Anomaly means "unusual," temperature variations are not. They would only be "anomalous" if they did NOT vary.

Why are global warming bureaucrats universally illiterate; something we associate with being dim-witted?

Your "record" is forever stuck in the same groove.

 

[Visbek]

You can run, but you can't hide.

lol

Longview has been arguing for days that, in the opinion of the IPCC, the uncertainty of the effects of certain feedback loops can be attributed to cosmoclimatology (Svensmark's theory)

I've been telling him for days that the IPCC explicitly ruled it out. I've cited the relevant passages for days and days. Even Svensmark knows that the IPCC does not currently consider his theories to be valid.

And now, pointing out that Longview can't read a complete paragraph means that I'm "running?" Wow. Even for you, that's thin gruel indeed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

From Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS:

They used SURFACE temperature data which have been adjusted many times over the years.

The AGW conjecture is based on the ATMOSPHERE area, which mean Satellite data is the proper venue for temperature data.

That is why your chart is junk.

 

[Jack Hays]

lol

Longview has been arguing for days that, in the opinion of the IPCC, the uncertainty of the effects of certain feedback loops can be attributed to cosmoclimatology (Svensmark's theory)

I've been telling him for days that the IPCC explicitly ruled it out. I've cited the relevant passages for days and days. Even Svensmark knows that the IPCC does not currently consider his theories to be valid.

And now, pointing out that Longview can't read a complete paragraph means that I'm "running?" Wow. Even for you, that's thin gruel indeed.

Yes. Running from my #664 and #667.

 

[Sunsettommy]

lol

Longview has been arguing for days that, in the opinion of the IPCC, the uncertainty of the effects of certain feedback loops can be attributed to cosmoclimatology (Svensmark's theory)

I've been telling him for days that the IPCC explicitly ruled it out. I've cited the relevant passages for days and days. Even Svensmark knows that the IPCC does not currently consider his theories to be valid.

And now, pointing out that Longview can't read a complete paragraph means that I'm "running?" Wow. Even for you, that's thin gruel indeed.

The IPCC is a meta analysis based organization which means they CHOSE what they want to include in their report. Did they address this published paper?

Response of cloud condensation nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation

LINK

 

[Visbek]

The IPCC is a meta analysis based organization which means they CHOSE what they want to include in their report. Did they address this published paper?

Egads.

Yes, the IPCC does a meta-analysis. They don't review just the papers that supports one specific view, they survey as much as they can of the literature, including responses to theories or papers, and draw conclusions. That includes discussing papers whose theories the IPCC ultimately rejects.

The specific paper you linked was published too late for review. It was published in June 2013, and the cutoff date for the 5th Assessment was March 15, 2013.

However, as I've been saying FOR DAYS NOW, the IPCC reviewed Svensmark's (and similar) theories in the 3rd and 5th Reports. (We should also note that other scientists, whose work I have mentioned, either explicitly refutes his claims or draws conclusions that rule out his theories.)

Sadly, that 2013 paper doesn't fix most of the problems that the IPCC has noted, such as:

• The correlations proposed by Svensmark didn't hold up
• Other studies have not successfully replicated his work
• The effects Svensmark hypothesizes are "weak or local at best"
• Empirical evidence did not show any effects of GCR flux on aerosol formation
• Other research shows that the aerosol system is not sensitive to the effects they predict
(That's about half of the objections listed in the 5th report btw)

The 2013 paper (and his latest one one) do resolve one set of issue, namely: There is a theoretical basis for suggesting that GCRs hitting parts of the atmosphere may be able to contribute to aerosol/cloud formation. They also saw some evidence of this in lab experiments. Unfortunately, that doesn't fix more critical issues, such as poor correlations, empirical evidence against the theory, and so forth as partially listed above.

Oh, and there are quite a few papers that aren't discussed by the IPCC, which disagree with or provide evidence against Svensmark's claims. I've even linked to a bunch of them. I guess y'all aren't bothering to actually read my posts. So it goes.

 

[Threegoofs]

All this is crap data collected from ever-changing methods and the effects of UHIE collected in exapanding urban areas.

On top of this, never trust a graph that doesn't bother to tell you what scales are used.

Anomaly means "unusual," temperature variations are not. They would only be "anomalous" if they did NOT vary.

Why are global warming bureaucrats universally illiterate; something we associate with being dim-witted?

Your "record" is forever stuck in the same groove.

I think you might not understand ‘scales’ on a graph.

 

[Threegoofs]

They used SURFACE temperature data which have been adjusted many times over the years.

The AGW conjecture is based on the ATMOSPHERE area, which mean Satellite data is the proper venue for temperature data.

That is why your chart is junk.

Umm. No.

Surface data is what we care about.

 

[Visbek]

All this is crap data collected from ever-changing methods and the effects of UHIE collected in exapanding urban areas.

(Comic Sans? In bold and italics? Seriously?)

News flash! The adjustments often revise temperatures down in order to compensate for urban heat islands.

They also publish all of that data -- including the uncorrected data, the amount of the corrections, any changes to measurement stations, any changes to methodologies... Plus, when they use a new methodology, they typically update past data, and release old and new data.

On top of this, never trust a graph that doesn't bother to tell you what scales are used.

Uh, dude? The scales are right there. They tell you exactly what's going on.

Anomaly means "unusual," temperature variations are not. They would only be "anomalous" if they did NOT vary.

Or, you have no clue what you're talking about.

The chart explicitly tells you what it's doing: It uses 1980 to 1999 as its reference period. The anomalies indicate how much the temperature in that year varies from the 1980-1999 average.

E.g. 1980 was 0.2C below the average for that period. 2016 was 0.6 above the average for that period. The predictions for 2016 were roughly 0.175 - 0.8 above the 1980-1999 average. Now, we can note that the predicted range is fairly broad... but we can also note that the observations are all pretty much in the middle of predictions, and that both the prediction range and actual temperature measurements are going up.

Even if you don't agree with the claims, the chart is very clear about what it's trying to tell you.

I find it quite thrilling that you bash someone for allegedly being "illiterate" and "dim-witted," when you don't understand something as basic as a label on a Y axis.

 

[Threegoofs]

(Comic Sans? In bold and italics? Seriously?)

News flash! The adjustments often revise temperatures down in order to compensate for urban heat islands.

They also publish all of that data -- including the uncorrected data, the amount of the corrections, any changes to measurement stations, any changes to methodologies... Plus, when they use a new methodology, they typically update past data, and release old and new data.



Uh, dude? The scales are right there. They tell you exactly what's going on.



Or, you have no clue what you're talking about.

The chart explicitly tells you what it's doing: It uses 1980 to 1999 as its reference period. The anomalies indicate how much the temperature in that year varies from the 1980-1999 average.

E.g. 1980 was 0.2C below the average for that period. 2016 was 0.6 above the average for that period. The predictions for 2016 were roughly 0.175 - 0.8 above the 1980-1999 average. Now, we can note that the predicted range is fairly broad... but we can also note that the observations are all pretty much in the middle of predictions, and that both the prediction range and actual temperature measurements are going up.

Even if you don't agree with the claims, the chart is very clear about what it's trying to tell you.

I find it quite thrilling that you bash someone for allegedly being "illiterate" and "dim-witted," when you don't understand something as basic as a label on a Y axis.

You can’t reason a man out of something that he didn’t reason himself into.

 

[Jack Hays]

We're in for several years (perhaps decades) of cooling from this point forward, despite increasing atmospheric CO2, and that will make the AGW hypothesis increasingly difficult to sustain.

 

[SirGareth]

I think you might not understand ‘scales’ on a graph.

I understand them to "14" whats your level of understanding?

 

[Visbek]

You can’t reason a man out of something that he didn’t reason himself into.

Seeing his response, I must concur....

 

[Jack Hays]

You can’t reason a man out of something that he didn’t reason himself into.

Seeing his response, I must concur....

It's good you two are talking to each other. It will be less embarrassing for you that way.