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

[SirGareth]

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

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

Seriously? How much? Do they know the r-rating of every roof in an urban area? The thermostat setting inside? The thickness of all the poured concrete and asphalt? The square footage of plowed and shoveled snow, the number of windows cracked for fresh air? The number of operating fireplaces and whats being burned in them?

What kind of instruments measures all this and hundreds of other heat affecting alterations of the unnatural environment or do they just do some cockamamie adjustments like Deke in his bib-overalls and his screwdriver "adjusting' the fuel injection of your brand new Porche 911 Carrera S to make it run better?

You had better tell me a bit more how these "adjustments" work for a large metropolitin area and then how accurate they are.

Are you evenly dimly aware that we have a climate reference network that exempts urban areas from all of its data collection and that is properly spatially distributed for the USA

Lets check it out:



Look ma it even identifies the scales used.

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.

No they don't or at least they didn't until they were caught "dicking the data"

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

I don't surf "dude" is the temperature scale in C or F, look again "dude"

The chart explicitly tells you what it's doing: It uses 1980 to 1999 as its reference period.

What is "scientific" about this period?

The anomalies indicate how much the temperature in that year varies from the 1980-1999 average.

They are not anomalies. Anomaly means "unusual." If every day month or year were the exactly same that would be be the only "anomalous" event to ever occur, so far it hasn't.

E.g. 1980 was 0.2C below the average for that period.

That's a guess, not recorded data

2016 was 0.6 above the average for that period.

That's another guess, there are no error bars for guesses and that's why they don't publish any.

The predictions for 2016 were roughly 0.175 - 0.8 above the 1980-1999 average.

So their guesses match their predictions? Or is it the other way around? Isn't that amazing?

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.

No, we can only note that its all one gigantic dung ball. This is a graph of guesses and guesses are like anuses, everybody has one.

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

Whats the difference between a claim and a guess, "scientifically" speaking ?

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.

I just thought it might be a bit more honest to identify the temperature scale employed since both F and C are used interchangeably in this fake "science"

Forgive me.

 

[Threegoofs]

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

I can count much higher than that.

 

[Threegoofs]

Seriously? How much? Do they know the r-rating of every roof in an urban area? The thermostat setting inside? The thickness of all the poured concrete and asphalt? The square footage of plowed and shoveled snow, the number of windows cracked for fresh air? The number of operating fireplaces and whats being burned in them?

What kind of instruments measures all this and hundreds of other heat affecting alterations of the unnatural environment or do they just do some cockamamie adjustments like Deke in his bib-overalls and his screwdriver "adjusting' the fuel injection of your brand new Porche 911 Carrera S to make it run better?

You had better tell me a bit more how these "adjustments" work for a large metropolitin area and then how accurate they are.

Are you evenly dimly aware that we have a climate reference network that exempts urban areas from all of its data collection and that is properly spatially distributed for the USA

Lets check it out:

View attachment 67229844

Look ma it even identifies the scales used.



No they don't or at least they didn't until they were caught "dicking the data"





I don't surf "dude" is the temperature scale in C or F, look again "dude"




What is "scientific" about this period?



They are not anomalies. Anomaly means "unusual." If every day month or year were the exactly same that would be be the only "anomalous" event to ever occur, so far it hasn't.




That's a guess, not recorded data



That's another guess, there are no error bars for guesses and that's why they don't publish any.



So their guesses match their predictions? Or is it the other way around? Isn't that amazing?



No, we can only note that its all one gigantic dung ball. This is a graph of guesses and guesses are like anuses, everybody has one.



Whats the difference between a claim and a guess, "scientifically" speaking ?



I just thought it might be a bit more honest to identify the temperature scale employed since both F and C are used interchangeably in this fake "science"

Forgive me.

Ah.

I see you don’t understand the commonly used units in scientific notation.

That’s...your problem.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Some data suggests Global Cooling started in 2006[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald’ Many good things come to an end and that includes the Modern Warm Period. Mild winters and early springs are now spoken of in the past tense. The peak of the Modern Warm Period was 2006 as shown by the oceanic lead indicator, the Gulf Stream, also called the North Atlantic…

7 days ago March 3, 2018 in Solar.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]The Modern Warm Period Delimited[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald This recent post discussed the end of the Modern Warm Period and the year that global cooling began. That post was inspired by a comment to a post on WUWT six to eight years ago to the effect that climate is controlled by the Sun’s magnetic flux – no need…
Continue reading →

 

[Threegoofs]

[h=1]Some data suggests Global Cooling started in 2006[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald’ Many good things come to an end and that includes the Modern Warm Period. Mild winters and early springs are now spoken of in the past tense. The peak of the Modern Warm Period was 2006 as shown by the oceanic lead indicator, the Gulf Stream, also called the North Atlantic…

7 days ago March 3, 2018 in Solar.

LOL.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL.

Zombie warming coming to an end. I personally think this author is a bit too cautious.

There is a lag between the aa Index and temperature of the atmosphere due to the damping effect of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Plotting the aa Index against the NOAA Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly, peak correlation occurs with a lag of six years as shown by Figure 5:

Figure 5: aa Index plotted against Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly lagged six years 1880 – 1995
The aa Index during the first half of Solar Cycle 24 averaged 13.1. The three years up to 2018 were higher at an average of 20.6. According to the relationship shown by Figure 5, the pulse of heat from the higher aa Index of the last three years will cause higher temperatures out to 2023.
So far in 2018 the aa Index has averaged 13.0 and should continue to weaken into the Solar Cycle 24/24 minimum expected in 2020. From the beginning of the aa Index record in 1868 to the end of the Little Ice Age in 1900, the aa Index averaged 15.4. It averaged 20.9 for the Modern Warm Period. For the Modern Warm Period not to be over, the aa Index would have to average over 20.0. That eventuality has a low probability given the way the Sun is behaving.

 

[Visbek]

Seriously? How much? Do they know the r-rating of every roof in an urban area? The thermostat setting inside? The thickness of all the poured concrete and asphalt? The square footage of plowed and shoveled snow, the number of windows cracked for fresh air? The number of operating fireplaces and whats being burned in them?

(Again with the Comic Sans?)

There are multiple protocols for adjustments. It's all documented. One good explainer somehow first got published (afaik) on Judith Curry's site:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

A more detailed example of GISS
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

In most cases, you can download the scripts and applications used to run the adjustments; changes are all tracked, and so forth.

And again, remember that in a lot of cases, the adjustments for urban heat island effects is to revise temperatures DOWN.

What kind of instruments measures all this and hundreds of other heat affecting alterations of the unnatural environment or do they just do some cockamamie adjustments like Deke in his bib-overalls and his screwdriver "adjusting' the fuel injection of your brand new Porche 911 Carrera S to make it run better?

So... you have no idea what you're talking about then. Noted.

As an example, NASA has public documentation on their stations.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/

You have to drill down a little bit to get some actual equipment info. Let me help you with that.

Explainer of the U.S. Regional Climate Reference Network, a pilot project operating in the US Southwest:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/usrcrn/

Photos of 70+ USRCRN stations:
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/usrcrn/web/photos.pdf

Keep in mind this is just quick searches.

Are you evenly dimly aware that we have a climate reference network that exempts urban areas from all of its data collection and that is properly spatially distributed for the USA

Are you even dimly aware that the United States is about 2% of the total surface area of the entire planet?

Look ma it even identifies the scales used.

Yes... So did the graph that Threegoofs posted... And I explained to you....

No they don't or at least they didn't until they were caught "dicking the data"

Uh... no. For example, NASA started adjustments in 1987, based on a published paper by Hansen and Lebedeff.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_ha00700d.pdf

Refinements over the year have been documented (see earlier link for an example).

I don't surf "dude" is the temperature scale in C or F, look again "dude"

It's CELSIUS, dude. That's the standard scale used in climate science. Are you sure you should be commenting on this stuff?

They are not anomalies. Anomaly means "unusual."

In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

The scientific definition of "anomaly" is basic, basic, basic climate science.

That's a guess, not recorded data

Uhm... no... that's recorded data. The graph tells you exactly which datasets it's using -- HADCRUT4, GISTEMP, NOAA NCEI etc.

I just thought it might be a bit more honest to identify the temperature scale employed since both F and C are used interchangeably in this fake "science"

Again: Climate science standardized on Celsius a long time ago.

The gaps in your knowledge of the basics of climate science are stunning... but not all that surprising. Ah well.

 

[Visbek]

Some data suggests Global Cooling started in 2006

And I've got a bridge to sell you.

Did you actually read the article? The author has worked for oil companies starting in 1979; he owned an oil exploration company, and currently owns his own company that works in oil. He has no training in climate science (surprise!).

Anyway. Regardless of his background, the flaw of the article should be screaming obvious: He cherry-picked a handful of tiny regions -- North Atlantic Currents! Central England! Perth!

And where is he getting those numbers from? The same datasets that, when assembled into global numbers, show a constant trend of warming (see Threegoofs chart, natch).

This is why WUWT is such total crap. They will publish anything that feeds the desperation of the deniers, no matter how bad the science of the blog post in question, or whether it undermines their own claims (e.g. "the data is right when it shows regional cooling, but wrong when it shows global warming!").

 

[Jack Hays]

And I've got a bridge to sell you.

Did you actually read the article? The author has worked for oil companies starting in 1979; he owned an oil exploration company, and currently owns his own company that works in oil. He has no training in climate science (surprise!).

Anyway. Regardless of his background, the flaw of the article should be screaming obvious: He cherry-picked a handful of tiny regions -- North Atlantic Currents! Central England! Perth!

And where is he getting those numbers from? The same datasets that, when assembled into global numbers, show a constant trend of warming (see Threegoofs chart, natch).

This is why WUWT is such total crap. They will publish anything that feeds the desperation of the deniers, no matter how bad the science of the blog post in question, or whether it undermines their own claims (e.g. "the data is right when it shows regional cooling, but wrong when it shows global warming!").

As to the author's background: So what? Doesn't matter even a little bit.

As for the rest, as I've already posted, temperatures are headed down and will stay down. He's on the right side of the question.

It will, however, take a while to again get as cool as 2012.:mrgreen::lamo

 

[Threegoofs]

(Again with the Comic Sans?)

There are multiple protocols for adjustments. It's all documented. One good explainer somehow first got published (afaik) on Judith Curry's site:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

A more detailed example of GISS
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

In most cases, you can download the scripts and applications used to run the adjustments; changes are all tracked, and so forth.

And again, remember that in a lot of cases, the adjustments for urban heat island effects is to revise temperatures DOWN.



So... you have no idea what you're talking about then. Noted.

As an example, NASA has public documentation on their stations.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/

You have to drill down a little bit to get some actual equipment info. Let me help you with that.

Explainer of the U.S. Regional Climate Reference Network, a pilot project operating in the US Southwest:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/usrcrn/

Photos of 70+ USRCRN stations:
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/usrcrn/web/photos.pdf

Keep in mind this is just quick searches.



Are you even dimly aware that the United States is about 2% of the total surface area of the entire planet?



Yes... So did the graph that Threegoofs posted... And I explained to you....



Uh... no. For example, NASA started adjustments in 1987, based on a published paper by Hansen and Lebedeff.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_ha00700d.pdf

Refinements over the year have been documented (see earlier link for an example).

It's CELSIUS, dude. That's the standard scale used in climate science. Are you sure you should be commenting on this stuff?



In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature

The scientific definition of "anomaly" is basic, basic, basic climate science.



Uhm... no... that's recorded data. The graph tells you exactly which datasets it's using -- HADCRUT4, GISTEMP, NOAA NCEI etc.



Again: Climate science standardized on Celsius a long time ago.

The gaps in your knowledge of the basics of climate science are stunning... but not all that surprising. Ah well.

Classic Dunning Kruger.

I bet he is going to try to argue that climate scientists report in both Celsius and Centigrade and that because it’s a librul plot to keep people confused on which scale they’re using.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

You wrote,

"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."

Actually Meta- Analysis is notoriously one sided, your naiveté is amusing, has the IPCC actually done much to address Svensmark's research? I don't see it, do you?

Here is what it looks like if properly done, which you have yet to show.

Meta-Analysis

Definition

A subset of systematic reviews; a method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power. This conclusion is statistically stronger than the analysis of any single study, due to increased numbers of subjects, greater diversity among subjects, or accumulated effects and results.

Meta-analysis would be used for the following purposes:

To establish statistical significance with studies that have conflicting results
To develop a more correct estimate of effect magnitude
To provide a more complex analysis of harms, safety data, and benefits
To examine subgroups with individual numbers that are not statistically significant

MORE in the link

Did the IPCC really spend that much effort to address Dr. Svensmark's research papers?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Umm. No.

Surface data is what we care about.

The "theory" in a nutshell,

"Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left). The earth’s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture). Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface. The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures."

LINK

No, the Surface temperature data doesn't address the AGW conjecture much since it NOT the surface, when most of the predictions/projections are for the Atmospheric arena, example:

Tropical mid troposphere "hot spot" region, which NOT the surface. (massive projection failure) Satellite data required.

CO2 ppm changes are in the Atmospheric arena. Satellite data required.

"back radiation", occurs in the Atmosphere arena. Satellite data required.

 

[Threegoofs]

The "theory" in a nutshell,

"Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left). The earth’s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture). Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface. The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures."

LINK

No, the Surface temperature data doesn't address the AGW conjecture much since it NOT the surface, when most of the predictions/projections are for the Atmospheric arena, example:

Tropical mid troposphere "hot spot" region, which NOT the surface. (massive projection failure) Satellite data required.

CO2 ppm changes are in the Atmospheric arena. Satellite data required.

"back radiation", occurs in the Atmosphere arena. Satellite data required.

Not sure where you live, but the people are on the surface.

 

[Visbek]

Actually Meta- Analysis is notoriously one sided

Uh... no, that's not even remotely correct. Even your own definition gives no justification for saying that a meta-analysis must be biased.

I do have to actually point out that I was wrong on one point: The IPCC reports aren't a meta-analysis. It's an assessment of the current research, i.e. it's closer to a systemic review.

A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis of diverse datasets. E.g. if you have 20 different studies of the placebo effect, each of which use slightly different statistical methods, a meta-analysis will go through all ten of those studies to try and present a single coherent picture. That isn't the function of the IPCC reports, e.g. it doesn't typically run a statistical analysis of all the papers on a given topic. Rather, it reviews papers on climate change, makes a call on which papers present better evidence or explanations, and tries to summarize which theories it classifies as plausible, as well as gives a rough measure of the uncertainties.

However, it is patently false to say that "all meta-analyses are one-sided." (The same for systemic reviews.) There is absolutely no justification for that claim.

has the IPCC actually done much to address Svensmark's research? I don't see it, do you?

Yes, they did in fact review Svensmark's claims. Since you don't actually seem to understand what the IPCC does: They don't do any original research. What they did was review the literature about cosmoclimatology (both for and against it).

I've cited the relevant passages numerous times. You have no excuse for "not seeing it." Here's the info again.

IPCC 3rd Report - pp 384-385
IPCC 5th Report - Physical Sciences Basis - pp 613-614

There is also lots of research which examine the cosmoclimatological claims (Svensmark isn't the only one who advocates that theory btw). I already linked to a bunch of articles for the general public which summarizes criticisms of cosmoclimatology. Most of the papers discussed, iirc, were published after the cutoff for the 5th Assessment.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651-climate-myths-its-all-down-to-cosmic-rays/
https://physicsworld.com/a/comprehensive-study-shows-cosmic-rays-are-not-causing-global-warming/
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response

 

[Jack Hays]

Uh... no, that's not even remotely correct. Even your own definition gives no justification for saying that a meta-analysis must be biased.

I do have to actually point out that I was wrong on one point: The IPCC reports aren't a meta-analysis. It's an assessment of the current research, i.e. it's closer to a systemic review.

A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis of diverse datasets. E.g. if you have 20 different studies of the placebo effect, each of which use slightly different statistical methods, a meta-analysis will go through all ten of those studies to try and present a single coherent picture. That isn't the function of the IPCC reports, e.g. it doesn't typically run a statistical analysis of all the papers on a given topic. Rather, it reviews papers on climate change, makes a call on which papers present better evidence or explanations, and tries to summarize which theories it classifies as plausible, as well as gives a rough measure of the uncertainties.

However, it is patently false to say that "all meta-analyses are one-sided." (The same for systemic reviews.) There is absolutely no justification for that claim.



Yes, they did in fact review Svensmark's claims. Since you don't actually seem to understand what the IPCC does: They don't do any original research. What they did was review the literature about cosmoclimatology (both for and against it).

As the advocates of Ptolemy banded together to oppose Copernicus.

 

[humbolt]

As the advocates of Ptolemy banded together to oppose Copernicus.

There's no doubt that the IPCC is a political body. If the science was sound, the IPCC would be unnecessary.

 

[MovingPictures]

As the advocates of Ptolemy banded together to oppose Copernicus.

That you draw any comparison between Svensmark and Copernicus, just goes to show how out of touch you are with science.

 

[Jack Hays]

That you draw any comparison between Svensmark and Copernicus, just goes to show how out of touch you are with science.

The investment in AGW groupthink is immense, so resistance is stout, but the coming years of cooling will increasingly drain credibility from the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

This looks like an inconclusive finding.

"Poorly known" is their catch phrase they use when they suspect they are an inconvenient truth, so they also fail to do any serious research or include such research in their material.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

But they left themselves an out. They do not explicitly say they have no effect.

Have anyplace whey they explicitly say they have no effect?

They weasel an implied conclusion very frequently. Such work if only taken seriously by the foolish.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

It is amazing to me that so many people place such faith in that political body.

 

[Threegoofs]

It is amazing to me that so many people place such faith in that political body.

As usual, you can’t tell the difference between science and politics.

 

[Jack Hays]

As usual, you can’t tell the difference between science and politics.

Neither can the IPCC.

 

[Threegoofs]

Neither can the IPCC.

Actually, they’re quite clear on that.

Guess you’ve never read it.