THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sorry, everyone, but more reading for you here: very relevant to my last post. This time it’s by Karel Beckman, editor-in-chief of European Energy Review. Headed “Under the Weather – confessions of a climate doubter”, it’s summarised thus:
A quotation:
Once more: amen to that.
Mar 02, 2009
“7 Mutually Contradictory Things about Climate Change”
On this Watts Up With That post here, about today’s snowy frigid “global warming protest” in DC, manacker (15:44:12) commented
Thingsbreak wrote: “Nothing is going to satisfy people who believe 7 mutually contradictory things about climate change.”
What could this sentence mean?
Let’s look at some IPCC “contradictions” (areas where the observed facts contradict the IPCC claims):
Contradiction #1:
IPCC projects global warming at a rate of 0.2C per decade in the early 21st century; so far the first 8 years of the 21st century have shown cooling at an average rate of around 0.1C per decade. Oops!
Contradiction #2:
IPCC states that the rate of sea level rise has increased in the latter part of the 20th century, switching from tide gauge records to satellite altimetry; the tide gauge record shows a slight decrease in sea level rise in the second half of the 20th century, as compared to the first half. Hmm.
Contradiction #3:
IPCC states that changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of only 0.12 W/m2, equivalent to a net warming of around 0.02C; several studies by solar scientists conclude that the 20th century warming caused by the unusually high level of solar activity is around 0.35C. Ouch!
Contradiction #4:
IPCC states that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years, ignoring overwhelming physical and historical evidence of a warmer global Medieval Warm Period. Huh?
Contradiction #5:
IPCC claims that the satellite temperature record has shown a faster rate of tropospheric warming than that at the surface, confirming the anthropogenic cause of warming; both the satellite and radiosonde record show less warming than the surface record. Oops!
Contradiction #6:
IPCC models all assume a strongly positive feedback from clouds with warming, resulting in 1.3C of the total assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C; actual physical observations show a strongly negative net feedback from clouds of around the same order of magnitude; correcting the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity for this factor brings it to around 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than 3.2C. Ouch!
Contradiction #7:
IPCC states confidently that the upward distortion of the surface temperature record due to the urban heat island effect has a negligible influence of less than 0.006C per decade; many studies from all over the world show that the UHI influence is thirty to fifty times as great as claimed by IPCC. Oh, oh!
There are many more, but I?ll just list these seven to start with.
Max
Barelysane
The presentation you posted (4441) gives a good overview of the many factors affecting our climate, even if it does take some time to absorb everything. I personally do not find it objectionable that the Heartland Institute assembled all these data, as the data themselves are from acknowledged and respected sources. This organization is certainly no more biased than IPCC, whose whole brief and reason for existence is to ascertain the importance and impact of anthropogenic factors on our climate.
The report does point out that natural factors play a more important role on our climate than human CO2.
The section covering issues with global surface temperature stations demonstrates that the UHI distortion of the record is real and significant. The studies cited conclude that as much as 30 to 50% of the observed warming since 1880 (i.e. 0.2 to 0.35C) may be attributed to this effect. This is in stark contrast to the IPCC claim that this effect has a negligible impact of less than 0.006C per decade (i.e. <0.08C over the 128-year period).
An interesting side point is the impact of changing calculation methodology from USHCN V1 to V2 data, where an urban adjustment factor was replaced with a “change point detection algorithm”; the impact of this change to the new method is shown graphically to have resulted in around 0.1C higher calculated temperature over the years 2000-2005.
The table toward the end showing the R^2 correlations between temperature and CO2, solar activity and PDO/AMO demonstrate that CO2 is, at best, a relatively minor player in the overall scheme of things.
The multi-decadal temperature cycles track fairly well with all of these natural factors, but only very poorly with atmospheric CO2. The period since 1998 shows absolutely no correlation between temperature and CO2.
As Robin pointed out many posts ago, the multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles prior to around 1975 also do not show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. This report shows that they do track closely with the natural factors investigated, however.
If nothing else, I think the presentation gives a good oversight of factors driving our planet’s climate, listing several references that can be checked out for more details.
It would be good reading for Peter to get him off of his fixation on human CO2 as the primary driver of our climate.
Max
Hello All
I thought it might take your minds off sockpuppets if you read this rather good article by Chartes Keeling, who believed the 1800 year oceanic tidal cycle was more responsible for global warming that man made co2. His heart was never in that theory -and nor was Nick Revelles- as can be seen in the formers autobiography.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf+html
By the way Max, that was a good post over at WUWT about the 7 contradictions-presumably it was late or you would have tried for 100?
Tonyb
Hi TonyB
Thanks for 4454. Interesting.
Yeah. A blogger on the other site had started out with a sentence regarding “7 contradictions”, so I left it at that number. You are right, there are many more.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Glad that you now agree (4438) with the Lean et al. estimate “of about 0.25 degC for the solar contribution to 20th century warming” (actually they concluded that it was around 0.28C), “the solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 [to 1990] and one third of the warming since 1970”. Some of the others studies I cited were a bit higher, with an average over all the studies of 0.35C.
Your next sentence, “Ok that is towards the upper end of the IPCC range but not outside it” confused me a bit. IPCC (with an admitted “low level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing) limited its forcing to the direct solar irradiance, with an estimated radiative forcing (from pre-industrial 1750 to 2005) of 0.12 W/m^2. This translates into a 20th century impact of around 0.02C, as opposed to 0.28C calculated by Lean et al., so I would not really call that “towards the upper end of the IPCC range but not outside it”.
You wrote, “The solar scientists need to make assumptions about feedback mechanisms just like any other climate scientist”. I could not find any reference in any of the several studies I cited to “feedback mechanisms”, nor could I find that any such assumptions were made.
Rather than making such assumptions, I found that these scientists used the pre-industrial correlation between observed changes in solar activity and observed temperature changes to arrive at an empirical correlation between solrar activity and temperature.
I could follow your next statement, “As I have previously shown the figures on solar climate sensitivity and CO2 climate sensitivity are consistent”.
The next statement baffled me, though, “They show that a doubling of CO2 levels will result in a rise in temperatures of 3.2 degK just like the IPCC say too.”
Let’s do a quick reality check on this.
a) 20th century warming is observed to be 0.65C (Hadley linear increase over period).
b) Solar impact is shown to be 0.35C (on average), with Lean et al. calculating 0.28C
c) This leaves around 0.3C for all other factors.
d) Let us ignore any upward UHI distortion to the surface record.
e) Let us ignore changes in PDO/AMO including the observed high incidence and strength of late 20th century El Niño events (including the one that resulted in the 20th century record warm year 1998)
f) Let us assume that the entire remaining 0.3C was caused by increased atmospheric CO2.
g) Let’s see how closely this checks with the IPCC estimate of 1.66 W/m^2 for radiative forcing from CO2 (from 1750 to 2005)
h) Adjusting this for 20th century CO2 levels, we arrive at a theoretical greenhouse warming of 0.3C, so the check is very close
i) From this actually observed warming we can now calculate a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, using the logarithmic relationship of CO2 concentrations
j) This gives us a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.7C (not 3.2C, as you stated)
Where is the big discrepancy?
a) All of the models cited by IPCC assume a strongly positive feedback from clouds, although IPCC did concede “Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”..
b) IPCC states that this feedback results in 1.3C out of a total 2xCO2 warming of 3.2C
c) Actual physical observations made after the IPCC report (Spencer et al.) show that the net cloud feedback is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as previously assumed by IPCC
d) Correcting the 2xCO2 impact for this factor brings it down to the range of 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than 3.2C as postulated by IPCC with the incorrectly assumed strongly positive cloud feedback.
So yes, Peter, we do have a good correlation, once we correct the IPCC estimate for the incorrectly assumed strongly positive cloud feedback and replace this with the physically observed strongly negative net feedback.
It all fits together nicely.
Regards,
Max
Robin, your series of posts about Happer, Michaels, and Beckman were very interesting. Along those same lines I saw this article with a very good summary of the whole AGW debate.
Also, I’d like to chime in again about the Heartland institute, and the view of the Warmers that anyone taking funding from industry is not objective, and therefore not worth listening to. Using that line of argument, I submit that any scientist who accepts any government funding for research into AGW is, therefore, equally not objective and not, therefore, worth listening to as well. James Hansen certainly comes to mind, but there are no doubt many thousands of other scientists who’s work provides the “scientific support” for government’s desire for higher taxes and more government control, and who subsequently provide continued funding for said scientists in a quid pro quo relationship
JZSmith
I’d agree with your assessment that the “science” backing AGW is no more “pure science” than that opposing AGW.
I could argue, however, that the scientific process itself relies upon rational skepticism. A hypothesis is proposed. Physical observations are made and experiments run to check the validity of the hypothesis based on the rationally skeptical premise that the hypothesis can only be validated (or refuted) by these efforts.
Computer simulations are not science. A multi-million dollar computer is just a fancy equivalent of the old sliderule of bygone days, nothing more. Yet these simulations of virtual reality are being “sold” to policymakers and the public as scientific truths.
The problem we have with AGW is that it has become a multi-billion dollar business, supporting an even larger tax scheme that will give politicians and bureaucrats obscene amounts of money to shuffle around at the expense of every man, woman and child on Earth.
Lots of power and big bucks at stake.
So the “science” supporting this multi-zillion dollar agenda is “agenda driven science”.
Climate scientists who want funding have to play along with the IPCC “agenda” and report potentially alarming results.
The IPCC, itself, needs to show a strong human impact on climate (or it’s whole reason for existence evaporates).
Is there a multi-zillion dollar effort (by big oil, coal or other interests) to stop AGW? I hardly believe that the amount of money being spent to counter AGW is anywhere near the huge amount being spent to promote it, yet the AGW crowd love to point out that this scientist or that group is “in the pay of big oil” (but that is simple polemic).
So, yes, there may be “agenda driven science” on both sides of the ongoing debate, but simply by “following the money trail” I would say there is a much smaller amount on the AGW-opposing side than on the side of the AGW promoters.
And there are some true scientists still left out there that have the courage to follow the scientific process of physical observation and experimentation to rationally and skeptically test the hypotheses that are being used to promote the AGW cause.
Fortunately, this group appears to be growing, despite all the obstacles placed in their way by the “big money” crowd.
And with all those thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots) telling us that it’s getting colder, rather than warming, the whole AGW bubble will most likely go “POP!” within the next few years, to be replaced with another “impending disaster” movement.
Regards,
Max
Max,
The IPCC range for solar forcing is 0.06 to 0.30W per square metre.
Wilson has reported a 1.66W/m^2 per square metre increase in TSI. (You first said that on this blog not me) That’s 0.28W/m^2 of solar forcing which is at the top end of the IPCC range but still within it.
So how do we convert a solar forcing of 0.28W/m^2 to a temperature rise? You are saying that this is possible from pre-industrial records? And you are saying that this works out to be 0.28 deg C ?
OK so 3.7W/m^2 of forcing from a doubling of CO2 (your quoted figure not mine) will produce a temperature rise of 3.7 degC.
See. The Maths is really quite easy.
That again is on the higher side of the IPCC range but not outside of it.
There really is nothing in the solar evidence to support your case at all. You’d be better off swatting up on Svensmark and his Cosmic ray ‘theory’.
Robin,
I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with your story that Darwin was right ( or at least closer to being right) than Kelvin on the age of the earth. Scientists have been steadily raising their estimates of the earth’s age from a few thousand years to about 4 billion years.
As far as governmental policy making is concerned it doesn’t really matter what it is. But if it were, and you had to go with a particular figure, which would you choose? You’d have no option, if you had any sense that is, but to go with the best scientific estimate available to you at the time.
Yes sure the scientific consensus can be wrong. The further you go back in time the wronger it was! But, you have to look pretty hard to find where it has been wrong in recent years.
If you carry through your argument to its logical conclusion you wouldn’t believe any science at all. You could smoke and drink as much as you like. You could even take hallucinogenic drugs. You might even think that you were a bird and could fly off a high building. However, you’d soon find that science was right on the law of gravity at least.
Max,
I thought you were making it perfectly clear that you weren’t going to discuss Solar warming any further.
Look I don’t mind either way, but you aren’t being quite as clear as you might be. Certainly not perfectly clear.
Peter,
Have you ever carried an independent thought…..ever?
“Due to their association with this odd behavior, lemming suicide is a frequently-used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences. em>
Mar 02, 2009
Pelosi and Markey Snowed-Out of Global Warming Rally
CNS News
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to cancel an appearance Monday at a global warming rally in Washington, D.C., that was hit by a snowstorm because her flight was delayed, her office told CNSNews.com. Brianna Cayo-Cotter, the spokesman for the Energy Action Coalition that held the rally, told a group of reporters that she had been in contact with Pelosi and that her flight had been delayed because of inclement weather.
A blizzard Sunday night and early Monday morning blanketed the nation?s capital with snow, causing events to be cancelled and delayed across the city.
House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who was scheduled to speak at the global warming event, also canceled his appearance because of the inclement weather, a spokesman from his committee?s office told CNSNews.com on Monday.
Speaker Pelosi’s office confirmed to CNSNews.com that her flight had been delayed, but they could not say where the flight was coming from or whether she was flying commercial or charter. According to a press notification released by the Speaker?s office on Friday, both lawmakers were scheduled to appear on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol at 11:30AM Monday. “In her remarks, the Speaker was to discuss the progress made and the next steps to green the House of Representatives through the Green the Capitol initiative,” said the press release.
But at 9.35am on Monday the House Radio TV/Gallery e-mailed reporters noting that, “The Speaker will NOT be participating in the 2009 Power Shift Conference Rally this morning at 11:30am on the West Front.” It is unclear if the event is still going on,” said the release.”
The event did occur, however, and despite the lawmakers’ absence, about 500 protesters braved temperatures in the mid-20s and congregated on the Capitol lawn. The rally was part of the Energy Action Coalition’s Power Shift 2009 Conference, which occurred in Washington, D.C., over the weekend.
On its website, under a section entitled “What We’re For,” the Energy Action Coalition says: “The partners of Energy Action and the youth who are building this movement have been at the forefront of the movement for bold, just and comprehensive action to stop global warming and create a just and sustainable energy future.” The site also includes a “Youth Climate Pledge” that says in part: “The climate crisis is the most urgent issue facing humanity today. Failure to fully and immediately confront it will condemn my generation to a transformed planet.”
Hi Peter,
You have agreed to the estimate of Lean et al. of a 20th century solar warming impact of 0.28C.
This was based on the empirical relationship between physically observed changes in solar activity and physically observed temperature change over several hundred years prior to human CO2.
It is not based on simply “converting a solar forcing [based on direct solar irradiance alone] to a [theoretical] temperature rise”, as you are trying to do.
It’s the old dilemma all over again, Peter: physical observations that do not agree with theoretical calculations.
I prefer the physical observations, even when the theoretical mechanism is not yet clearly defined whereas you prefer the theoretical calculation, even if it defies the physical observation.
But I agree that it makes no sense to continue this part of our debate, since you have come around to agree with the fact that around half of the 20th century warming was caused by the sun, leaving the other half for CO2, any UHI distortions to the record plus any other natural causes (AMO/PDO, increased El Niño events, etc.).
Just don’t throw in the silly side remark that this demonstrates that “a doubling of CO2 will produce a temperature rise of 3.7 degC”.
If the 20th century rise in CO2 caused a temperature rise of 0.3C, then a doubling of CO2 will produce a temperature rise of around 0.7C. The arithmetic here is really quite simple, Peter.
Regards,
Max
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B069CE285%2D245D%2D4680%2D99B9%
Feb 28, 2009
Is global warming passe? Issue Drifting from Minds of Many Americans
By Thomas Kostigen, MarketWatch
Global warming is falling out of the minds, if not the hearts, of many Americans. Only 30% of people surveyed in a recent Pew Research Center poll believe global warming is a top priority. That’s down from 35% last year. In fact, global warming ranks dead last in Pew’s list of priority issues. The economy by far is the biggest concern people have, with 85% of those surveyed naming it as their top priority, followed by jobs and terrorism. Trade policy ranks just above global warming by one percentage point.
The broader category of the environment also plunged as a national priority, according to the survey, down to 41% from 56% in 2008. “The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities,” Pew notes.
Kostigen goes on to say we should not let our job worries and the economy keep us from addressing this issue, claiming that by doing so we would create new jobs and a better economy. This flies in the face of what the European and Australian experience has been. Carbon prices have collapsed and jobs have left those countries for less greener countries. They are abandoning the policies we are planning to enact. The same negative effect will occur here in the states if we let this failed environmental agenda take control of our policies. CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer that has enabled the world to grow more food and feed more of its people. As Dr. Happer testified, our atmosphere has been suffering from CO2 starvation with levels one third of those over most of the earth’s history. Wake up America before it is too late.
Hi Peter,
I believe we both agree that we have concluded the discussion on 20th century solar warming with a rough agreement that this was around half of the total observed warming of 0.65C.
To a new subject: you made mention of the Svensmark hypothesis relating solar activity with cosmic rays and (cooling) low altitude cloud formation.
While Svensmark apparently did confirm this hypothesis in a simple lab experiment, this was too rudimentary to provide any kind of robust support for the hypothesis.
A larger-scale experiment is being set up at CERN. This will tell us more about the validity of Svensmark’s hypothesis.
Until proven, I would tend to be rationally skeptical of this hypothesis, even if it may sound plausible.
If the experiment fails to prove the hypothesis, then I would conclude that it has been disproven and can be discarded.
If, however, the experiment does validate the hypothesis, we have a whole new ball-game and possibly a major paradigm-shift in climate science.
This could provide the answer for the missing “mechanism” to explain why the solar impact on temperature is so much higher than the theoretical warming from direct solar irradiance alone (your earlier dilemma).
It might also clear up some uncertainties on how clouds act to cool our planet and why.
It is too early to try to guess how this will play out.
I know that many pro-AGW sites, such as RealClimate, do not believe that Svensmark’s hypothesis has any chance of being proven correct (and even write it off as “the deniers’ last stand”, etc.), but I see this more as a “defense” position (to defend AGW against any potential competitors).
What are your thoughts on all this?
Regards,
Max
Brute
Looks like the Pelosi/Hansen “snow job” got “snowed out”.
A couple of hundred starry-eyed college kids looking for some pre-Spring Break fun plus a few hard-core agitators and a handful of eco-activists did not look like a “mass movement”, ut more like a “flop”.
But explain one thing to me: Obama (and by proxy, Pelosi) have been running on “CHANGE we can believe in”, yet they are fighting against “(anthropogenic) climate CHANGE that’s a bit harder to believe in”. Do they want CHANGE or not?
Max
Max,
I know you are quite fond of the concept of linear warming but if you were unlucky enough to be trapped in a Victorian bushfire your finally moments would be at a somewhat elevated temperature and which would finish you off. I don’t think it would be much of a comfort for you you to know that the linear temperature increase was somewhat less than the temperature increase you were actually experiencing at the time.
So I’d put the warming of the land/ocean of the 20th century at more like 0.8 degC. The warming on land alone at about 1.2 degC
But in any case, whatever the exact figure, how is it possible to know that N degC is from solar alone, unless it is calculated on the basis of the amount of solar climate forcing?
You’ve obviously have a lot of faith in solar scientists to give us the correct answer, which is commendable, but haven’t these same scientists said that solar forcing can’t be responsible for the late 20th century warming?
Do you believe them when they say this too? Or do you only believe the bits you like? Are you saying that you know “more about solar forcing in the 20th century than all these solar scientists”?
My thoughts on Svensmark? Yes, a “deniers last stand” sounds a good description. I guess if, in the unlikely event, he does turn out to be correct you’ll then have no problem agreeing with everyone else that recent global warming was not caused by solar changes or an increase in the TSI. You might even agree that my “silly” calculations weren’t so silly after all. You don’t really care what has caused recent global warming providing that it isn’t CO2!
Max,
I’ll have to get back to you tomorrow morning. I slipped on the global warming outside and I think I busted my elbow…..
Hi Peter,
Looks like you are off on another rant.
Linear warming is the method preferred by IPCC to describe long-term warming trends. Hadley is the record IPCC prefers. Rather than getting into a lot of discussion on these IPCC preferences, I simply accept them for what they are worth. What this has to do with Victorian bushfires is hard for me to see. And what you “would put” the 20th century warming (on land/sea/or both) is fairly irrelevant. Hadley has already made an estimate on that, which has been accepted by IPCC, so let’s stick with that.
Solar climate forcing has been established based on a long historical record covering a period of pre-industrial development with no human CO2. The solar scientists have told us that over the entire 20th century, solar forcing represented a bit more than 50% of the total, but that from 1970 on, it represented only around one-third. You posed the question, “You’ve obviously have a lot of faith in solar scientists to give us the correct answer, which is commendable, but haven’t these same scientists said that solar forcing can’t be responsible for the late 20th century warming? Do you believe them when they say this too? Or do you only believe the bits you like?”
Sure, I can accept this, because it makes sense. Over the short-term “blip” in the record from 1970 to 2000, the solar impact was only one-third, while over the entire record, it was a bit more than 50%. Can you accept this? Or do you only believe the bits you like?
Now to Svensmark. You state, “a denier’s last stand sounds a good description”.
Do you have any scientific basis for this statement? Or is it just “whistling in the dark”, hoping his hypothesis will not be proven correct by the CLOUD project at CERN?
I would truly be interested in any scientific points you can bring to demonstrate that his hypothesis is not plausible in your opinion. I, for one, believe that it is plausible, but I am rationally skeptical of its validity until it can be proven (or disproven) by experimentation.
In a way, it’s sort of hanging out there in “never-never” land (like the AGW hypothesis, itself), until it can be proven experimentally or by actual physical observations.
If his hypothesis can be validated, it will go a long way in explaining why the physically observed solar impact on warming was so much higher than that portion that can only be attributed to direct solar irradiance alone. If it is refuted, this will still remain a mystery.
If it is validated there will be a major paradigm shift in climate science away from a predominantly CO2 driven climate to a more solar driven climate, but who knows what will really happen at CERN?
Your last two statements were, “You might even agree that my “silly” calculations weren’t so silly after all. You don’t really care what has caused recent global warming providing that it isn’t CO2!”
The first statement is a bit difficult for me to comprehend. Can you be a bit more specific in explaining what you are trying to say here?
The second sentence is, indeed, silly. It would be just as silly for me to write to you, “You don’t really care what has really caused recent global warming providing you can claim that it is CO2!” This would be pure polemic, Peter (as was your statement).
So let’s move on to Svensmark. Why do you feel that his hypothesis is not plausible?
Please bring specifics, if you can.
Regards,
Max
JZ and Max (to whom my congratulations on the coverage of your IPCC “contradictions”): recent comments on the Heartland Institute touch on something ignored by the MSM. The issue isn’t only that, because of the political agenda, scientific studies supporting the AGW hypothesis are hugely well funded by government grants (they are – and often, not least because of the importance of grant overhead to universities, to the detriment of other scientific work) and studies sceptical of that hypothesis get minimal funding (they do), it’s also that financial and moral support for the AGW hypothesis also comes from numerous well-funded “green” movements, from the hierarchies of scientific organisations, from an admiring media, from the United Nations, from well-heeled supporters such as George Sorus and, in particular, from what is now a vast and growing renewables industry. And to all that can be added the opprobrium risked by those taking a contrary line: for example, my new hero, Professor Happer was fired from his government position when he expressed doubts about AGW. Remember (see 4451) the introduction to Karen Beckman’s article (about the Poznan conference): “‘Climate change’ has grown into a large bureaucratic, industrial and political machine, on which the livelihood of many thousands of people depends.” It’s quite hard to see how the above cannot inevitably be corrupting: for example, any young scientist noting that following the AGW line brings income, preferment and even fame whereas taking a sceptical line can lead to criticism and oblivion, is bound to be tempted. Inevitably and understandably (even scientists have families to feed) some, probably most, will give in and join what Ms Beckman describes as an “intellectual climate [where] there is little room for doubt”. In contrast, it takes real bravery (arguably foolhardiness) for a scientist to follow a sceptical line. So, yes, Max – I have to agree that support for the AGW hypothesis has become “agenda driven science”.
Hi Peter,
Just a quick post regarding the Cosmic Ray / Cloud hypothesis proposed by Svensmark et al. and supported by a few other solar scientists as an explanation for the fact that the physically observed impact of the sun on our climate is several times greater than the impact that can be attributed to direct solar irradiance alone.
First off, I am not saying that this hypothesis has been scientifically “proven”.
But, then again, it has also not been scientifically “disproven”.
All I am discussing here is whether or not it is plausible.
In my opinion, it is plausible.
Here is my reasoning on this:
An observed empirical physical correlation seems to hold well based on around 25 years of low altitude satellite measurements of cloud cover and cosmic ray flux. (See graph).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3327233252_683bdacbcf_o.jpg
The stated hypothesis is:
· Decreased solar activity increases cosmic ray flux by allowing more cosmic rays to reach the earth’s atmosphere
· Increased cosmic ray flux in the atmosphere releases electrons, which in turn increase the formation of water droplet nuclei at lower altitudes, thereby increasing low altitude cloud cover
· Increased low altitude cloud cover reflects a larger portion of the incoming solar radiation, thereby cooling the earth.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
While the empirical correlation seems to exist between cosmic ray flux and low altitude cloud cover, no firm evidence of a physical causal mechanism, based on conclusive experimental results, exists to date.
The small-scale “SKY” experiment conducted in 2006 has experimentally identified a causal mechanism and thereby provided some preliminary verification of the hypothesis, but it is not yet a conclusive validation.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Getting_closer_to_the_cosmic_connection_to_climate.pdf
The larger scale CLOUD experiment, now being set up at CERN, will provide more conclusive results to either validate or refute the hypothesis.
Peter, do you have any thoughts on this at all?
If so, what are they?
Regards,
Max
Brute
Sorry to hear about your unfortunate AGW-climate-related accident. Hope your elbow heals quickly.
Did you follow the Washington AGW civil disobedience demo and circus? Seems there was a handful of starry-eyed students, led by a small number of enviro-activists with a few hard-core professional demonstrators in the crowd, but all-in-all it appears to have been a major flop. No cars were trashed, no flags burned, no fire hoses, no one even arrested.
Hardly even newsworthy.
Max
Max,
Not busted, just bruised. Mrs. Brute packed the elbow in global warming to help ease the swelling.
We’ve have lots and lots of global warming around DC lately. Pretty heavy carbon dioxide induced blizzard hit here Monday. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this area, but when global warming hits here like it did on Monday, people go insane. They simply don’t know how to drive on the global warming as in other areas of the US…….People slipping on the global warming and crashing their cars into each other like a global warming skating rink……schools closed due to all of the snowdrifts caused by the global warming.
Last night it was 12 degrees above zero so all of the global warming that had melted during the day (due to the Sun, which doesn’t impact the temperature on Earth according to Climatologist extraordinaire Peter Martin), refroze overnight causing more global warming induced car accidents today.
Tonight I think they are predicting that the temperature will be 6 degrees above zero because of all of the CO2 produced by the Capitalist Pigs.
You’re correct, the “massive” civil disobedience protest turned out about a score of shivering Hippies that soon disbanded to the local coffee shops and their warm parentally subsidized hotel rooms and the Capital power plant continued to generate steam and chilled water as it has for a number of years. They packed their peace signs into their BMW’s and drove back to their college dorm rooms or to their parent’s coal heated McMansions in the suburbs to dream dreams of insurrection in their warm comfy beds.
Degrees measured Fahrenheit, for all of my European/Austalian friends. (Which means it’s really cold).
Max,
Can’t you apply your solar argument against Cosmic rays just the same as against CO2? If not why not?
Or is it that Cosmic ray hypothesis is plausible but the CO2 effect isn’t?
Why is it so important for you to find an alternative to CO2?
As I’ve said before it really doesn’t matter to me or mainstream science either, whether it is CO2 or not. Except that, sure, now it would be embarrassing if we all turn out to be wrong! But, when the CO2 question was really up for discussion, before scientific consensus had been reached, and that would mean before about 1995, we didn’t have any pre-considerations.
I just don’t believe that is the case with you guys.