Global Warming III

[chewy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

[Bill Glasheen]

I wouldn't throw the theory out just yet.

For one... We know that there are these 11-year cosmic radiation cycles. And it's been known that global temperature doesn't respond to them. All the plots I've shown reflect that. Just click backwards to page 2 of this thread.

Why could this be? Well... Take a look at the Y-axis on this plot.



Do you see how they magnified a very small portion of the axis on the "cause"?

Is there a threshold change in cosmic radiation (magnitude and/or persistence) which causes cloud formation patterns to change, which subsequently changes global temperature?

Plus, take into account the very words of the author of this study.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Additionally...

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.

Hmm... Not exactly journalistic integrity.

We'll see how this all sorts out.

- Bill

[cxt]

I think "debunked" is not only premature, its a heavily loaded term.

One of the things I find most distasteful is the eagerness on the part of Al Gore and Company to silence all discussion/debate about the science.

The ultimate causion is debatable.

The earth has gone thu MAJOR climate shifts when no people were present or at the time incapable of having effect.

AL Gore and company proports to be not only be able to deduce the exact cause of this particular climate shift but they also can seperate it from all other causes--like the last one that ended the "Little Ice Age."

That is a pretty big order.

And even if true, AL Gore and Company have failed to think about the possible repecussions of their actions.

If humans can really tinker with the enviorment to such an extent--what if what they doing has the opposite effect??

A buddy of mine loves to point out an interesting bit of research/modleing where (basically "borrows" the work of another researcher BTW) graphs the amount of atmospheric pollution and various "clean air" acts which removed VASTamount of particulate matter from the atmosphere.

Then graphs that with global warming.

It shows that cleaner air can be directly linked to global warming.

And he is only half-way serious BTW.

[chewy]

ctx - sorry, but I could have sworn I typed a question mark... as in "debunked?". I don't see what Al Gore has to do with this particular paper though; was it authored/published by somebody working for him?

I agree, however, that all theories (Global CO2 warming, Global cosmic warming, gravity, relativity, evolution, Saddam-terrorist connections) are debatable. That's why they are labeled "theories"; the question is at what point does the preponderance of evidence lead experts and the public accept the theory as fact.

I haven't totally made up my mind on this issue, but I can't believe that we a a species have zero affect on our atmosphere (see smog, ozone depletion, etc).


steve

[chewy]

Why could this be? Well... Take a look at the Y-axis on this plot.



Do you see how they magnified a very small portion of the axis on the "cause"?

I'm going to sound stupid here, but I don't see it. Can you provide some detail?


chewy

[Bill Glasheen]

They are showing less than 10% of the Y axis for "Cosmic ray count." By doing so, they are making a small change (percentage wise) appear to be much bigger than it is.

Old trick...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Here are graphs on the subject that show a bit more honesty in their presentation. They also happen to show a much broader experience, thus minimizing the likelihood that the effects are random (not explained by observed causes).

• Cosmic radiation affects cloud formation.
• Variations in sunspot activity modulate cosmic radiation.

So here are a few plots which show the striking correlation. Furthermore, note how the sunspot activity generally leads global temperature. This isn't historically the case for CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

This plot shows recent fluctuations.



This shows longer-term fluctuations.



Carbon-14 data can project these trends farther back. Note that the axis here is reversed, with the most recent date being on the left. All the known maximums and minimums of global temperature follow this trend quite nicely. In particular, you can see the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age reflected quite nicely. (Compare plot with the one above in Adam's post)

[Bill Glasheen]

There is another possibility here.

The correlation (not necessarily causation) between sunspot activity and global temperature is very high over the long run. Whether or not it has to do with cosmic radiation and cloud formation as an intermediary is still a subject of scientific debate.

So the theory put forth by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (before the whole CO2 debate, BTW) may need a little work.

- Bill

[cxt]

chewy

I have not made up my mind either.

I'm just asking a question---mainly this---

If we accept that humans are the main cause of global warming, that essentially we have been running a climate change experiement that is having undesirable and unexpected results, because we really didn't fully understand what we were doing.
Should we really be running ANOTHER such climate change experiement where we AGAIN, have no real clue what we are doing?

Al Gore has nothing much to do with the study---I was using him a "shorthand" for the point of view.

Like I said, I honestly don't know what to think.

I do know that I don't trust zealots of ANY stripe.

And I do know that only one side in this discussion has stated that they already know the facts and no more talk is needed.
As a matter or principle, I disagree with that approach.
The more so since the Gore and Company have little in the way of actual solutions.

I also have deep concerns over the whole "carbon credit" thing---everything I have read indicates a worst a scam and at best nothing substantive.

[IJ]

The fuss over the sunspot thing is precisely what i was referring to when i questioned the high degree of certainty in earlier posts on the matter, along the lines of, the issue is settle, it was the sunspots, most climatologists don't understand. And again, I'd love for this to be solar. I do like my television and CD player. I just don't think we're going to solve it reading excerpts from BBC, competing documentaries, or clips of Gore's film. As for this, tho:

"If humans can really tinker with the enviorment to such an extent--what if what they doing has the opposite effect??"

First, we wouldn't be reversing course and sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere to levels that existed before industrialization. We wouldn't even be able to head back to where we started. We probably won't even be able to stop the increase, just slow it down.

In other words, we're putting the car in 4th gear instead of 5th gear and I don't think we need to worry about going backwards, especially farther backwards than we've traveled forward in the last hundreds of years.

And its not that we "AGAIN, have no real clue what we are doing?" even if we COULD reverse gears. going back to letting nature steer the bus is not really tampering and doesn't require full understanding; its relinquishing control to someone who's been steering well for millenia. In my mind doing LESS net stuff is always a good idea when you're understanding is weak, so you don't later find out you were doing wrong stuff.

NB: I'm not concluding we need to reduce CO2. I dunno. I'm just saying that "we're changing things rapidly so lets keep doing that because we don't fully understand the issue" falls short of ideal.

[cxt]

Ian

But what is clear that even if the Al Gore and company are to be taken at face value---they still can't really explain the actual operating system that is running things.

We have some pretty good guess work about it--but that is all that it really is.

30 years ago, the general understanding was that we were headed for a global cooling.
NOBODY really knows why the Littel Ice Age ended and global temp went up--well before people could have had much of any effect.

At least one researcher (if memory serves) has posited that we should be in the middle of a global cooling cycle--and he could not figure out why were not.

The logical conclusion is that humans are--at least to a degree artifically warming the planet.

What if we stop and we kick off another Little Ice Age??

If you think global warming is a threat--try running the numbers on famine alone if there is serious cooling.

Like I said, I don't have the answers----what concerns me is Al Gore doesn't either----but he is pushing for serious changes which will have serious economic repercussions.

(repercussion to be shouldered by the USA and the West in general--with the up and coming largest users of energy on the planet China and India, not inculded BTW)

I simply don't think that he has really looked at what he is asking---has not really thought it thu.

I am also deeply troubled by their instance that discussion/debate is no longer needed or even productive.

[chewy]

They are showing less than 10% of the Y axis for "Cosmic ray count." By doing so, they are making a small change (percentage wise) appear to be much bigger than it is.

Old trick...

- Bill

Source? Is there a graph with a longer X-axis that shows cosmic ray counts beyond the Y-bounds of this graph? My point is, if you collect a bunch of data and that data all falls withing a certain range, then why artificially zoom the graph out too far? That would just distort the data to look more like a flat line.

I think you may be trying to say "why didn't they show a Y-axis that goes all the way to zero"? Is that it? If so, why show the Y-axis all the way down to zero if the normal range for cosmic rays is way above that?

When I take voltage or current measurements in the lab I don't care about where 0V or 0A falls if the voltage/current never reaches that point. I try to take snap-shots of data where the median magnitude (Y-axis) becomes the vertical center of the graph.

chewy

[chewy]

I will also note that the solar sunspot activity graph has similar issues, if I'm understanding your point correctly. It also artificially cuts off the X-axis at 1860 and 1980. Sunspot activity measurements where carried out long before 1860 and continue to this day. We could speculate that the graph was draw this way because the data before 1860 and after 1980 doesn't support the authors' conclusions.

I for one am not going to read too much into how the data is presented. These theories and papers are all, likely, being submitted to peer reviewed journals. If they aren't, then nobody will take them seriously. If they are, then I'm hoping experts in the fields of climatology and cosmology will either call their bluff (if they are indeed distorting the data) or say "WOW! Good point!".

chewy

[Bill Glasheen]

Source?

This needs no source. This is one of those issues that any scientist worth his degree and training knows.

I think you may be trying to say "why didn't they show a Y-axis that goes all the way to zero"?

No I'm not.

I'm merely asking that the author be reasonable. And what reasonable is has to be taken in context. And knowing what reasonable is would be why they pay me to do my job both privately as a scientist in a commercial company and publically as a peer reviewer for articles that make it into the literature. (The last paper I reviewed was last month for an Operations Research journal.)

To put it simply, we need to understand what is significant, and what is random (noise). You can take any part of any graph, blow up the abscissa, and see complex patterns. But are they meaningful in the context of what you are studying?

To answer questions like this, we apply tools such as statistics.

I will also note that the solar sunspot activity graph has similar issues

Indeed. But to what degree? Look at the magnitude of the magnification. What percent of the total is the range of the Y axis? You will see that it is different.

And how long a period of time did they look at the signal? If you look at a signal long enough (centuries) you can get a perspective on what is relatively persistent (statistically significant) trend, and what is noise.

Another thing to look at - which is quite revealing - is what they are actually measuring. The long trends on sunspot activity and the related Carbon 14 trends tend to be highly correlated with the effect in question. (Note - correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.) But the very short period of cosmic ray counts in a small interval of magnitude doesn't appear to be associated with the effect.

It is what it is. Step back, think, and study more.

You sound like you are an engineer, or have been. That being the case, you should also understand other concepts such as phase lags (delay between cause and effect), low pass filtering, and transfer functions between factor A (say sunspot activity) and another factor (say cosmic ray count, C-14 levels, or global temperature). As you realize, this can get very complicated - and very interesting.

- Bill

[IJ]

"What if we stop and we kick off another Little Ice Age??"

Read my post again...

First, we're not realistically going to stop, just slow down.
Second, earth has been taking care of itself for a while. I doubt that there was a cataclysm of ice coming that we were lucky enough to coincidentally head off.

If your concern is that we shouldn't tamper with climate change when we don't know wnough about it, fine, but tampering in this case would be emitting carbon, not stopping emitting carbon.