Why do laypersons have such arrogance when denying human-caused climate change?

[Jack Hays]

Look Jack, maybe this will help explain what I'm trying my darndest to communicate to you. I already had a Shaviv-related image on my hard drive and another for Svensmark, so this is literally Figure 3 - I suppose the caption would be "Cosmoclimatology's role in the late 20th century warming":

I realize that these are very difficult sciency concepts, but that really is the best that a humble amateur such as I can manage. If you still don't understand, I'll just have to acknowledge that I have been defeated by an ignorance greater than my own.

If you would put aside your arrogance for just a moment you might learn something.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

[FONT=&quot]. . . So why is this link important for global warming? As previously mentioned, solar activity has been increasing over the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century. This can be seen in fig. 5. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940's and 1970's (as can be seen in the ion chamber data in fig. 6), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20thcentury global warming.
[/FONT]

 

[Mithrae]

If you would put aside your arrogance for just a moment you might learn something.

You're the one who is doing the learning here, it seems. My initial point was exceedingly simple - "cosmic radiation has remained more or less steady over the period of instrumental records" - and backed up by sound evidence, including from your own sources, in multiple subsequent posts. It has taken you no fewer than six C&P attempts to post something which even addresses that point, let alone teaching me the error of my ways :lol: Hopefully this change indicates that you have learned something from our conversation.

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20thcentury global warming.
[/FONT]

There's two questions which are (or at least should be) blatantly obvious to you from this figure:

> Why (in a 2012/2013 post) is Shaviv using such old data which terminates in 1994?
> Why is he showing an 11 year mean?

The theory is that cosmic radiation influences cloud formation rates. Cosmic radiation varies from year to year (or for that matter month to month and probably day to day), as does global cloud coverage. The relevant mechanism is that low-level clouds cool the local surface by blocking a portion of incoming sunlight. But when those clouds are gone, they are not still cooling the area, are they? If there's less than usual cloud cover in 1984, that might make 1984 a comparatively hot year, but it won't make 1986 or 1987 any hotter when they've got more clouds!

So why has Shaviv marked an average on the graph as if to imply that the GCR effect was to make 1986/87 hotter than 1969/70, when even from his own graph it's clear that the opposite is true? That later pair of years had the higher GCR value and thus more cooling from extra cloud formation than 1969/70, if the theory is true.

On more or less the same note, it is indisputable that GCR values once again increased after the low values of the early 1990s. This is the image used in Marsh and Svensmark (2003), with data going up to the end of 2002 (taken from a different blog post of Shaviv's you linked earlier):

This is the image used in Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich (2007), with data going up to 2006:

So why is it that in a 2012/13 blog post, Dr. Shaviv chose to use data from a 1997 paper with data going only up to 1994? Did he not want to show that the GCR values of the 2000s were the same as those of the 1980s - and actually a bit higher than 1958-61?

According to the theory, cosmic radiation was contributing more to warming (or more precisely, less to cooling) when solar activity peaked in 1959 than it was contributing in the early 2000s. This isn't some far-fetched outlandish notion, this is what is shown by the graphs from Svensmark's own papers and discussions. In fact in the caption to that second graph, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen explicitly note that the GCR-temperature correlation only becomes particularly pronounced after removing the warming trend: "The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nin ̃o, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade)."

After six attempts in this thread - and it's a point I've raised in previous threads also - you have finally come up with a relevant reply, but pending coherent answers to these two questions, there's an obvious discrepancy here which is far more likely the result of misleading material in a blog post than in Svensmark's academic publications.

 

[Mithrae]

On more or less the same note, it is indisputable that GCR values once again increased after the low values of the early 1990s. This is the image used in Marsh and Svensmark (2003), with data going up to the end of 2002 (taken from a different blog post of Shaviv's you linked earlier):

Too late to edit in a correction, but actually it's the data from (and similar though not identical to the graph in) Marsh and Svensmark 2003. A small distinction, but still :lol:

 

[flogger]

Too late to edit in a correction, but actually it's the data from (and similar though not identical to the graph in) Marsh and Svensmark 2003. A small distinction, but still :lol:

So why do you think a snaphot of 50 - 60 years is long enough to be making determinations about anything given how long warming and cooling phases can often last ?

Its akin to looking out your window and deciding that because it is raining today it must always be raining and might even get worse so we best all go live in costly bunkers ! :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

You're the one who is doing the learning here, it seems. My initial point was exceedingly simple - "cosmic radiation has remained more or less steady over the period of instrumental records" - and backed up by sound evidence, including from your own sources, in multiple subsequent posts. It has taken you no fewer than six C&P attempts to post something which even addresses that point, let alone teaching me the error of my ways :lol: Hopefully this change indicates that you have learned something from our conversation.

You're cute when you've been smacked down. Since Svensmark and Shaviv routinely cite each other I doubt they disagree. Here's Shaviv's 2005 paper. PDF

Here's something newer. [h=2]The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.[/h][FONT=&quot]Blog topic:
cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


After being asked by 5 independent people about the new sunspot number reconstruction and that it doesn’t show that the sun should have contributed any warming to the 20th century, I decided to write about it here. I have one word to describe it – irrelevant. It is also a good opportunity to write about new results (well, one that saw the light of day a few months ago) showing again that the sun has a large effect on climate. Yet, the world will still continue to ignore it. Am I surprised? No I’m not.

Here he dispatches a sloppy attack on his work.

[h=2]Euthanizing Overholt et al.: How bad can a bad paper be?[/h]Blog topic:
astronomy, global warming, personal research, weather & climate











Last month I visited the U of Washington to give a talk in which I discussed the effects of cosmic rays on climate. At the end of it, not one, but two people independently asked me about Overholt et al., which supposedly ruled out the idea that passages through the galactic spiral arms affect the appearance of glaciations on Earth. I told them that the paper had really stupid mistakes and it should be discarded in the waste bin of history, but given that Overholt et al. is still considered at all, I have no choice but to more openly euthanize it.
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

If a little Shaviv is good then more is better.

Sights from a Field Trip in the Milky Way: From Paleoclimatology to Dark Matter

Blog topic:
astronomy, cosmic rays, personal research, weather & climate

I was recently asked to write an article to “The Institute Letter” of Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, where I am spending a wonderful sabbatical year. It briefly describes a very interesting discovery that my colleagues and I made, which is that the 32 million year oscillation of the solar system perpendicular to the galactic plane can clearly be seen in the paleoclimate data. In the article, I also discuss how the discovery came and some of its implications. I am bringing a slightly expanded version here (with more figures and elaborated caption), and references of course. Enjoy.
By shaviv Read more...

 

[Jack Hays]

You're the one who is doing the learning here, it seems. My initial point was exceedingly simple - "cosmic radiation has remained more or less steady over the period of instrumental records" - and backed up by sound evidence, including from your own sources, in multiple subsequent posts. It has taken you no fewer than six C&P attempts to post something which even addresses that point, let alone teaching me the error of my ways :lol: Hopefully this change indicates that you have learned something from our conversation.

I'll make it easy for you.

Video Lecture: Solar vs. Anthropogenic—Better Understanding of 20th Century Climate Change

Last month I participated in EIKE's (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie) conference on Climate Change. They video record the lectures, which means that mine is now online. I thought I'd share it with you. Have fun.

By shaviv Read more...

 

[Jack Hays]

You're the one who is doing the learning here, it seems. My initial point was exceedingly simple - "cosmic radiation has remained more or less steady over the period of instrumental records" - and backed up by sound evidence, including from your own sources, in multiple subsequent posts. It has taken you no fewer than six C&P attempts to post something which even addresses that point, let alone teaching me the error of my ways :lol: Hopefully this change indicates that you have learned something from our conversation.

After six attempts in this thread - and it's a point I've raised in previous threads also - you have finally come up with a relevant reply, but pending coherent answers to these two questions, there's an obvious discrepancy here which is far more likely the result of misleading material in a blog post than in Svensmark's academic publications.

Please note the multiple Shaviv references.

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges - Astronomy & Geophysics

astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/1/1.18.full.pdf
by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 278 - ‎Related articles
SVENSMARK: COSMOCLIMATOLOGY. 1.18. A&G • February 2007 • Vol. 48. Data on cloud cover from satellites, com- pared with counts of galactic cosmic.​

 

[polgara]

If a little Shaviv is good then more is better.

Sights from a Field Trip in the Milky Way: From Paleoclimatology to Dark Matter

[FONT=&]Blog topic:
astronomy, cosmic rays, personal research, weather & climate

I was recently asked to write an article to “The Institute Letter” of Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, where I am spending a wonderful sabbatical year. It briefly describes a very interesting discovery that my colleagues and I made, which is that the 32 million year oscillation of the solar system perpendicular to the galactic plane can clearly be seen in the paleoclimate data. In the article, I also discuss how the discovery came and some of its implications. I am bringing a slightly expanded version here (with more figures and elaborated caption), and references of course. Enjoy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&] By shaviv Read more...[/FONT]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

As I read what shaviv has been working on in the link provided, I find that I gained more respect than I already had for the patience he has shown in the research he has done over the years. Not only is he an expert in the field of cosmoclimatology theory, he is also very good at explaining where he is currently focused - and why - based on what he has already learned, using language that doesn't sound self-aggrandizing. Very rare, but very much appreciated by a non-scientific reader like me who actually understood some of what he was talking about! :thumbs: :mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

As I read what shaviv has been working on in the link provided, I find that I gained more respect than I already had for the patience he has shown in the research he has done over the years. Not only is he an expert in the field of cosmoclimatology theory, he is also very good at explaining where he is currently focused - and why - based on what he has already learned, using language that doesn't sound self-aggrandizing. Very rare, but very much appreciated by a non-scientific reader like me who actually understood some of what he was talking about! :thumbs: :mrgreen:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Your curiosity is refreshingly genuine.:mrgreen:

 

[Mithrae]

You're cute when you've been smacked down. Since Svensmark and Shaviv routinely cite each other I doubt they disagree. Here's Shaviv's 2005 paper. PDF

I'm always cute! I'm like a sweet little cherub dancing in the -ing tulips.

Depending on the quality desired, the instrumental records of cosmic radiation flux only go back to 1980 or 1960 or 1940 or so. And as I have said and shown again and again and again, over that period there have been fluctuations but no strong multi-decadal trend; the proposed CR-cloud mechanism cannot have been responsible for any multi-decadal warming over that period.

In this academic publication Shaviv has not provided the same misleading graphics which you fell for in his blog post: He doesn't even attempt to claim that the CRF caused any warming in the latter part of the 20th century. Instead, his estimate is based on a comparison of 1850-1900 with 1950-1990. And while solar activity has declined slightly since the 1959 peak, it's certainly true that it increased between those two periods regardless of whether the older or the newer estimates are used:

Spoiler

Shaviv's final estimate of the temperature contribution from solar/CRF changes in that period is based on an estimate of overall climate sensitivity which may or may not be correct. Of particular note, estimates of TSI variation have been significantly downgraded since the 1993-1998 Hoyt/Lean/Solanki data which Shaviv uses in that paper, and in his later blog post/s Shaviv evidently uses the newer more accurate values.

But what we can easily confirm is that based on the HadCRUT4 data the total warming over that period (1850-1900 to 1950-1990) was about 0.29 degrees. Shaviv's estimates of the relative contributions in that period are 77% solar/CRF and 23% anthropogenic, with almost a quarter of the former based on the high older TSI values. But even using those ratios as is, that would imply that of the 0.29 degrees' warming in that period about 0.22 degrees was caused by combined solar/CRF influences, all before the 1980s. That estimate may or may not be too high - the CRF-cloud mechanism which makes up most of the figure hasn't yet been demonstrated after all - but certainly it's neither new nor surprising that solar variation contributed significantly to the early 20th century warming.

None of this changes the fact that the cosmic radiation flux has no strong multi-decadal trend since at least the 1960s, and therefore cannot be responsible for the last half-century's warming.

 

[Mithrae]

As a point of interest, here's a graph covering as close to the relevant data as Wood for Trees has available.

The red is a 12-month mean of HadCRUT4 temperature values.

The green approximates the time period covered by the estimate in Shaviv's 2005 paper; since it's a 40-year mean, the first point of the plot is the average of 1850-1890 (Shaviv used 1850-1900) and the last point covers 1950-1990.

Since WfT does not have any data for 10Be proxies, the sunspot record is a good approximation for TSI and the best available for CRF. That's the blue plot - onto which I've added the direct instrumental measurements of TSI (purple).

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[Lord of Planar]

So...

Just how well has this been ruled out?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now consider this:



A scatter plot only has a 0.654 correlation, but expecting a 0.8 or higher is insane, when there are so many climate variables.

 

[Mithrae]

Now consider this:

View attachment 67214578

A scatter plot only has a 0.654 correlation, but expecting a 0.8 or higher is insane, when there are so many climate variables.

Well, we all know one major climate forcing agent which easily reaches <0.85 correlation (and not just up to 1975)...

Look, neither you nor anyone else has ever explained why the earth would be made warmer in 1970 because of how hot the sun was in 1930! Surely - surely - this is an amazingly simple point, and an utterly absurd thing to suppose without very good reason.

We know why that's the case for CO2: At present it is steadily building up in the atmosphere. The ppm of CO2 in 1995 is still there, and in fact there's a lot more on top of it now! Its influence is there long enough for the thermal inertia of the oceans to be an important factor in considering the lag in its total effect. It's not the 1995 CO2 which is making the earth warmer in 2017, it's the 2017 concentrations which were emitted in 1995 (for all intents and purposes) and haven't fully reached equilibrium yet.

But that is obviously, obviously not the case for solar variation.

CO2 accumulates, but solar activity fluctuates.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Look, neither you nor anyone else has ever explained why the earth would be made warmer in 1970 because of how hot the sun was in 1930! Surely - surely - this is an amazingly simple point, and an utterly absurd thing to suppose without very good reason.

I can explain how it is possible. I have explained it. You and others have dismissed the science behind it, with no thought about it... Completely denied the scientific process.

 

[calamity]

A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart."

"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

"Climate science exacerbates this problem, because dumb people think in concrete, definite terms and categories, while climate is probabalistic, fuzzy, hard to grasp even for many with some technical training."

"An interesting corroboration of this foible of dump people is corporate self-assessment programs. I’ve heard that the worst, about-to-be-terminated employees usually give themselves glowing self-assessments, while the star employees are nearly always sober, downbeat in their self-assessment, with a keen sense of and concern for what they regard as their own shortcomings."

"A decade ago it was conceivable that an intelligent person could at least be a climate change skeptic. But in the early 2000s virtually all developed nations’ national science associations came out with climate change statements/warnings in line with what the climate science community says."

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change

Brainwashed people taught to deny the findings of experts is very common: flat earth, anti-vax, government caused AIDS, cancer profit industry, climate denial, no moon landing...the list is long, and probably endless because stupid people far outnumber the smart.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I can explain how it is possible. I have explained it. You and others have dismissed the science behind it, with no thought about it... Completely denied the scientific process.

As for why nobody has written a paper on the concert...

Most likely because the purse holders of the government funding doesn't want to see it!

 

[Mithrae]

I can explain how it is possible. I have explained it. You and others have dismissed the science behind it, with no thought about it... Completely denied the scientific process.

No, you haven't. And when you're asserting something this utterly and obviously absurd - once again for everyone who missed it, that the planet is warmed in 1970 by how hot the sun was in 1930! - I'm pretty sure I'd remember anything which even remotely approached a coherent explanation.


Edit: And great job trying to cover your rear with yet another conspiracy theory :roll:

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, you haven't. And when you're asserting something this utterly and obviously absurd - once again for everyone who missed it, that the planet is warmed in 1970 by how hot the sun was in 1930! - I'm pretty sure I'd remember anything which even remotely approached a coherent explanation.


Edit: And great job trying to cover your rear with yet another conspiracy theory :roll:

I never specified an exact timeline. My though is a "best fit" is more like 55 to 75 years, for a similar model with nonlinear refinements.

Here are some older graphs I have on photobucket. Ideas, that I think have merit. No specific numbers.

How many times have I referenced Hansen's 100 yr. equalization time for 70% equalization? These types of dynamics are never discussed in papers dedicated to the cause.

 

[Renae]

How else would you describe baseless denialist accusations of conspiracy and fraud, made by people with little knowledge of the subject? It's pure, idealogiocally-driven arrogance.

It's a poorly described groupthink event, which is what AGW has always been. Groupthink. It's not a conspiracy, it's got inertia. That's why the very same people that tell us CO2 is ruining the climate! That we all need to do "our fair share" can blindly cheer on such Global Warming Champions like Leonardo Dicaprio can get away with his jet setting lifestyle and not get called ot the carpet. It's how Al Gore is still relevant to AGW even though he lives his life in total opposite of the GREEN message. It's the message that's importnat because, well... right? Everyone says so....

What's funnier is that you actually think you know what's going on, tell me oh all intelligent and knowing forum goer, what is Earths, geologically speaking, average climate?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

The good ol' Dunning-Kruger effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[Renae]

From my experience, it is arrogance and ignorance that people have who call us deniers.

There is a very small handful of actual deniers that visit here and try to debate the climate sciences from time to time, but not those of us who disagree with you now, who are regulars.

We are not denying that man has an effect. We just disagree with the stated levels of damage and alarmism.

We are not deniers, and you show your ignorant arrogance every time you call one of us a denier.

They call us deniers, yet they are the ones claiming climate doesn't change!

 

[Mithrae]

How many times have I referenced Hansen's 100 yr. equalization time for 70% equalization? These types of dynamics are never discussed in papers dedicated to the cause.

...decades- and centuries- long equalization times for ongoing forcing, such as in the case of CO2. Again, it's not the 1995 CO2 which is making the earth warmer in 2017, it's the 2017 concentrations which were emitted in 1995 (for all intents and purposes) and haven't fully reached equilibrium yet.

You managed to hit the nail on the head about this once upon a time, but evidently you've gone back to magical thinking purely because you've realised and dislike the fact that >90% of solar influence on 20th century temperatures must have occurred by mid-century, and in fact there's been a slight cooling influence since the early 1990s.

Spoiler

 

[Lord of Planar]

Thing is, nobody has ever demonstrated the these concepts are included in the model properly. I have only shown known indirect effects. As for the pinning down the amplitude and time effects, these are real mechanisms.

Are you going to deny that?