Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[painted wolf]

Okay, I guess you weren't as big a dinosaur fan as I was when I was a kid! I had assumed that the way the reptiles of that age moved into every available niche made them the dominant group of animals, but regardless it doesn't have much to do with the topic.

I'm working toward getting my PhD in paleontology... I never stopped being a fan of dinosaurs.

The early Permian had a much different climate than it did when the long period of smoldering Siberian Traps brought that era to an end. And, like I said before, if the Sun was cooler in ages past, greenhouse gas levels could be higher without having the same effect on temperatures.

And yet the greenhouse gasses still had a profound effect.

No, most ocean life does not prefer the warm waters, if we use the density of marine life as a guide. Those clear blue Caribbean and Mediterranean waters are so clear because they are comparatively devoid of life compared to Arctic and Antarctic seas. The biggest whales may go to the tropics for reproductive purposes, but where do the Blue Whales and Humpback Whales go to feed?

Again, that is because the 24 hour sunlight boosts primary production... they go there because there is next to no competition because most life can't stand the cold.
Here take a look (the closer to red the higher the diversity the darker the blue the lower the diversity of species):

You seem to be confusing the role of "cold" water upwelling bringing nutrients up to tropical systems with the animals preferred temperatures.

here is a more detailed set of biodiversity maps showing the numbers of species by more specific groups: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7310/images_article/nature09329-f1.2.jpg

You will see that the vast majority of species live in the tropics and the poles are essentially deserted. You can also see this by looking at any photograph of a coral reef vs. the polar ocean floor.

Now, if the tropics get much hotter it will be too hot for most living things.
Life has a very narrow suite of temperatures that it can thrive in... too warm is as dangerous as too cold. As evidenced by coral bleaching.

Going back a couple of years to a NASA lecture (complete with slides) Richard Alley of Penn State, made a pretty compelling case that CO2 levels...not solar cycles or other effects, was the closest correlation with temperature from paleoclimate research. Many of the presumed anomalies of the past, which were trumpeted by groups denying the link, have since been resolved by newer, more accurate measuring methods (Tripati from 2009) and a couple of major anomalies of the distant past were just plain bad data collection and storage. Richard Alley on Earth's Biggest Climate Control Knob

Actually he said CO2 is the primary driver, not the only driver and that the lag between CO2 percentage and warming is vitally important... which is what I've been saying.

You need to understand how the whole system works, not just one part of it. And simply pointing to CO2 levels as the bogyman/instant fix is useless.
Yes, it is something we need to address, it's the part we can control. But it's not going to magically fix things right away.

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, it is something we need to address, it's the part we can control.

I have a theory (not in the scientific sense) that one of the reasons for the comparatively large focus on C02 (and to a lesser extent othe anthropogenic emissions) in climate theory against natural forcings is exactly for this reason. We focus on areas we know something about and that we have more control over.The more the current warming trend is also the product of natural forcings, then 1) the less we can do and 2) the less we know, as (for example) cloud dynamics continue to be a rather large mystery.

 

[painted wolf]

I have a theory (not in the scientific sense) that one of the reasons for the comparatively large focus on C02 (and to a lesser extent othe anthropogenic emissions) in climate theory against natural forcings is exactly for this reason. We focus on areas we know something about and that we have more control over.

That makes sense to me as well... It's very easy to see the burning of fossil fuels as a long term, if uncontrolled experiment.
It's also easier to choose a single factor to start your investigations on.

The more the current warming trend is also the product of natural forcings, then 1) the less we can do and 2) the less we know, as (for example) cloud dynamics continue to be a rather large mystery.

Yes, but if there is less we can do to stop it, we can focus more on what to do about mitigation.

Again, I'm of the opinion that we are mostly likely exaggerating a natural climate cycle rather than producing it entirely on our own. But I also admit that my own studies are of biology and not on climate. Except where climate and ecology/biology intersect.

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But I also admit that my own studies are of biology and not on climate. Except where climate and ecology/biology intersect.

They do intersect all the time (and thanks to you, I now know about certain mechanisms involved in this intersection I did not before). I'm also not a climate scientist. But I've kept up with a lot of the research and a background in parts of the field that are central to climate science enables me to grasp a good deal of it. And as I've said before, nobody is an expert on climate exactly (although obviously some are more than others) because of the very reason you touch on: the intersection of climate with so many specialties, from mathematics to paleontology.

 

[Agnostic75]

They do intersect all the time (and thanks to you, I now know about certain mechanisms involved in this intersection I did not before). I'm also not a climate scientist. But I've kept up with a lot of the research and a background in parts of the field that are central to climate science enables me to grasp a good deal of it. And as I've said before, nobody is an expert on climate exactly (although obviously some are more than others) because of the very reason you touch on: the intersection of climate with so many specialties, from mathematics to paleontology.

Have you ever visited www.realclimate.org? Only working climatologists are allowed to make posts, but anyone can read the articles and access the archives. The web site was started by some climatologists who accept AGW.

You might be interested in reading an article by Jim Lippard at The Lippard Blog: Who are the climate change skeptics?. He is that past president of the Internet Infidels, and is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy. The article is 'Who are climate change skeptics?'

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Have you ever visited www.realclimate.org? Only working climatologists are allowed to make posts, but anyone can read the articles and access the archives. The web site was started by some climatologists who accept AGW.

I used to check on it several times a week, along with the related blog from the other side climateaudit (which was started, incidently, because McIntyre's comments in which he tried to defend himself from the accusations of Gavin and others, were simply deleted). I still check in from time to time to both, but I don't like realclimate's policy of editing comments, and I don't want to read climateaudit without getting the other side.

However, while such sources are useful for behind the scenes viewpoints, claims, accusations, assertions, etc., I think it's much more important to read the actual published research than blogs.

You might be interested in reading an article by Jim Lippard at The Lippard Blog: Who are the climate change skeptics?. He is that past president of the Internet Infidels, and is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy. The article is 'Who are climate change skeptics?'

I've read such blogs. They almost always (like the one you link to) distort the truth, whether they are pro-AGW or anti-AGW. For example, take the claim about the "$90,000" dollars that the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change received from...ExxonMobile. I'm sure they probably did. Except that this was over several years. And ExxonMobile also gave the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation $1,000,000 in 2010 alone. In the same year, they gave 110,000 dollars to climate change study at Standford University.

Or take the George C. Marshall instute, a conservative thinktank. They've published papers for so many "deniers!" Only, so have mainstream journals. Spencer is dismissed for his religion despite being awared (along with Christy) for discovering how to use satellites to build temperature data sets. And Christy was a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report and has been a contributer ever since.

And I could go to plenty of blogs which distort the truth in exactly the opposite way, making it seem as if all AGW theory was just environmentalist/left-wing propanda. But I don't because it's ridiculous.

What I'm most interested in reading is
1) the published, peer-reviewed research
2) Papers published in academic series or academic conference proceedings
3) The code and raw data behind the temperature sets (only this is impossible).

 

[painted wolf]

The NCSE (National Center for Science Education) has recently decided to take up the issue of climate change. This is an organization I highly respect for its ongoing work with evolution education.
I'd be interested in your opinions on their climate change initiative.
NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution & Climate Science

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The NCSE (National Center for Science Education) has recently decided to take up the issue of climate change. This is an organization I highly respect for its ongoing work with evolution education.
I'd be interested in your opinions on their climate change initiative.
NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution & Climate Science

wa:do

Personally, it's hard for me to judge on this one. Certainly, it contains a pretty informative account of climate science without getting too technical. And there's none of the maligning found on so many other sites. They are even careful to point out that the issue is complex and that we aren't exactly sure how much humans are contributing to the warming, just that we know they are and probably a lot. The problem I have judging these and other similar sites is that I still haven't decided what a good way to educate the public is. Making certain to point out all the unknowns is not likely to do any good. Same with pointing out that there is ongoing research challenging mainstream AGW theory. On the other hand, most of the poeple who believe that humans are warming the planet are missing a lot of information. Then again, having that information may do more harm then good.

A comletely fair and balanced view of the state of climate research would point out a lot more problems and unknowns than the link you posted does. But unless that fair and balanced view is highly technical (and therefore largely inaccesible), it's too easy to be used to support the idea that AGW isn't a problem.

As a site for educators, I'd say it's pretty good. And I'll have to look at their evolution information, as it seems (from what you said) they've been doing that a while and that's definitely something that too many people seem to know to little about.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Himalayan Glaciers have lost no Ice in the past 10 Years

A new report published Thursday, Feb. 9, in the science journal Nature offers the first comprehensive study of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and one of its conclusions has shocked scientists. Using GRACE, a pair of orbiting satellites racing around the planet at an altitude of 300 miles, it comes to the eye-popping conclusion that the Himalayas have barely melted at all in the past 10 years.

Why is this eye-popping? Does it prove anything? What is a decade in the context of climate?

 

[shawn001]

Himalayan Glaciers have lost no Ice in the past 10 Years



Why is this eye-popping? Does it prove anything? What is a decade in the context of climate?

One of the guy's who did the study.

"Prof John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, pointed out that the new way of measuring glaciers using satellites known as Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) is at an early stage and more work needs to be done.
The study shows 148 billion tonnes of ice, or about 39 cubic miles, was lost annually between 2003 and 2010.
This equates to some 1,000 cubic miles of ice disappearing between 2003 and 2010 – enough to cover the US in one-and-a-half feet of water.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," he said. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

Melting glaciers on the Himalayas not contributing to sea level rise - Telegraph


NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice

JPL
NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

[shawn001]

NASA Leads Study of Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss

NASA Leads Study of Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

[work in progress]

Actually atmospheric carbon levels have fluctuated, although the general trend is indeed upward.

No, not just "general" trend, but an absolute year over year increase in CO2 since measurements started being made at Mauna Loa. On NOAA's published list, I don't see one year that is lower than the previous year ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
CO2Now posts these highlights:
Year CO2 (ppm) Notes
2011 391.57
2010 389.78
2009 387.38 Copenhagen Accord
2008 385.59
2007 383.77
2006 381.90

1997 363.71 Kyoto Protocol
1992 356.38 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
1987 349.16 The last year when the annual CO2 level was less than 350 ppm
1959 315.97 The first year with a full year of instrument data

The only fluctuations in CO2 levels are seasonal...as monthly measurements fluctuate with a seasonal variation. But when compared with the same month of the previous year, the new carbon level is invariably higher:

Most of the studies I'm aware of, especially those which concern the AGW period, have nothing to do with solar flares or sunspots. For example, one main theory is the fluctuations of the Sun's gravitational field which protects the earth from being bombarded with galactic rays is responsible for a large portion (and the primary driver) of current warming (and past cooling) trends. The main idea involves fluctuations in GCRs (resulting from the fluctuations from the sun's gravitational field) cause either a decrease or increase in cloud cover, which is a principal climate forcing.

Whatever the Sun is doing or not doing, one thing it isn't doing is raising global temperatures:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

AGW theory predicts that's were the warming should be: the lower troposphere.

And isn't that where the warming has occurred? The proponents of solar radiation or cosmic ray effects etc. should be able to show warming from the stratosphere on down, but that's not what the record shows.

Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere which is caused by two mechanisms. One mechanism involves the conversion of translational energy of motion or translational kinetic energy (KE) into Infrared radiation (IR) and the other method involves the absorption of IR energy by CO2 in the troposphere such that it is no longer available to the stratosphere.

Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why is this eye-popping? Does it prove anything? What is a decade in the context of climate?

It's more sensationalist bunk for the most part. There are three interesting things I think are worthing point out concerning melting and climate science in genral (and by doing so I wish to start with the caveat that the whole article is exactly the type of media misrepresentation I've been objecting to).

The first is the more important: model predictions. Our climate models do attempt to predict decadal time scales, not merely in terms of temperature but in terms of the effect on environment. If they are usually wrong, then this is a problem.

Second, melting ice (whether glaciars, artic, or mountains), is much more complicated than often depicted. For one thing, montane ice levels can fluctuate due to everything from deforestation to AGW. Also, ice-levels in certain areas have increased during the AGW period. Then there is the records. For many places, including the Himalayas, we're missing a lot of important data which would give us a clearer historical picture of even recent ice fluctuations. Sea-ice fluctuations in particular are very difficult to ascertain on a global scale.

Third, one of the more recent embarrassments of the IPCC which provides some support for a problem in the peer-review process concerns Himalayan ice. The IPCC puts it rather diplomatically here: IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers

A more full account may be found here: Anatomy of IPCC’s Mistakeon Himalayan Glaciers and Year 2035 | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media
Don't be fooled by the "Yale" title. As far as I know, the connection between the Yale Forum is only marginally connected to Yale and it isn't an a scientific source. However, its account above is more accurate and detailed.

Basically, the IPCC made a fairly small but really incredibly stupid mistake in its report. The IPCC reports are not only supposed to be thoroughly reviewed, the material they rely on is supposed to be already peer-reviewed. While other problems with the IPCC reports less clear (whether this or that article was deliberately ignored because it contradicted or cast doubt on the claims made in a certain part of the report), this mistake is very clear.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, not just "general" trend, but an absolute year over year increase in CO2 since measurements started being made at Mauna Loa.

That's just one source of CO2 measurements.

The following graph is from a 2005 paper published in the journal Geology. You can find the paper here. I did a google image search to find a picture of the graph:

The paper found a strong connection (albeit with a lag) between CO2 and temperature. And note that the highest point on the graph is, as we would expect, in the AGW period. However, the graph trends downward at the end, which we would not expect.

However, even at Mauna Loa, we see fluctuations, which are more or less dramatic depending on how one wishes to display the data. Here, for example, are the changes in annual growth rate:

On NOAA's published list, I don't see one year that is lower than the previous year

You would if you looked at the list of monthly averages. The co2 cycle exhibits strong seasonal fluctuations:

On a graph showing annual fluctuations, this variability is significantly less. However, what you state here is not exactly correct:

The only fluctuations in CO2 levels are seasonal...as monthly measurements fluctuate with a seasonal variation. But when compared with the same month of the previous year, the new carbon level is invariably higher

That's true if we limit the data set to one site. The graph immediately below is taken from the NOAA's website and represents multiple sites. The actual annual fluctuations in measurements are given there as well:
Year ppm/yr Unc.
1980 1.75 0.19
1981 1.10 0.06
1982 1.04 0.22
1983 1.83 0.12
1984 1.18 0.12
1985 1.74 0.11
1986 1.05 0.18
1987 2.69 0.10
1988 2.23 0.10
1989 1.35 0.11
1990 1.22 0.10
1991 0.70 0.11
1992 0.69 0.12
1993 1.25 0.08
1994 1.68 0.14
1995 1.95 0.12
1996 1.07 0.08
1997 1.97 0.10
1998 2.84 0.14
1999 1.33 0.10
2000 1.24 0.13
2001 1.84 0.14
2002 2.41 0.08
2003 2.20 0.16
2004 1.58 0.06
2005 2.41 0.11
2006 1.79 0.11
2007 2.10 0.08
2008 1.80 0.06
2009 1.63 0.09
2010 2.35 0.09
2011 2.03 0.09

:

Whatever the Sun is doing or not doing, one thing it isn't doing is raising global temperatures

I've provided you with full access to the papers I referenced, but even more important: You are continually comparing one aspect of solar activity with temperature. However, most studies which find that the sun is the principal driver of the current warming do not think this is because of solar flares or sunspots but fluctuations in the suns magnetic field.

If you want more details, once again I provided links to the papers a few posts back. You can read them in their entirety.


:

And isn't that where the warming has occurred? The proponents of solar radiation or cosmic ray effects etc. should be able to show warming from the stratosphere on down, but that's not what the record shows.

Cosmic ray fluctuation is not related to solar radiation. The sun provides a magnetic shield which protects the earth. This, like irradiative emissions from the sun, fluctuates. It is these fluctuations which cause increases and decreases in galactic cosmic rays, not solar irradiance.

 

[work in progress]

Again, that is because the 24 hour sunlight boosts primary production... they go there because there is next to no competition because most life can't stand the cold.
Here take a look (the closer to red the higher the diversity the darker the blue the lower the diversity of species):


You seem to be confusing the role of "cold" water upwelling bringing nutrients up to tropical systems with the animals preferred temperatures.

here is a more detailed set of biodiversity maps showing the numbers of species by more specific groups: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7310/images_article/nature09329-f1.2.jpg

You will see that the vast majority of species live in the tropics and the poles are essentially deserted. You can also see this by looking at any photograph of a coral reef vs. the polar ocean floor.

Now, if the tropics get much hotter it will be too hot for most living things.
Life has a very narrow suite of temperatures that it can thrive in... too warm is as dangerous as too cold. As evidenced by coral bleaching.

And that has been my point all along here. If the ocean temps are higher, along with the slowdown in circulation, there will be larger areas of tropical ocean where the surface layers (150' from what I'm told) block the upwelling of nutrients from below. The argument that James Lovelock and a few friends were making was that the ice ages were not the threat to life that biologists had portrayed; but were periods that would have been better for sea life, and even total land area would not have been far reduced from present land area because of the lower sea levels. Lovelock's point is that the periods of high temperatures, when the world is ice free, are the ones that coincide with loss of biodiversity and extinctions, and that's why we should be especially concerned about this new, extremely rapid pace of climate warming.

Actually he said CO2 is the primary driver, not the only driver and that the lag between CO2 percentage and warming is vitally important... which is what I've been saying.

Thanks for the patronizing! That's why so many people dislike scientists in case you were wondering. He said many times in that talk, that CO2 was the ONLY driver that can be correlated completely with the warming and cooling trends in Earth's history.

 

[work in progress]

That's just one source of CO2 measurements.

Unless I'm mistaken, the whole point behind the National Geographic Society decision to pick Mauna Loa for annual measurements was to test the hypothesis that atmospheric gases moved freely around the world, so that sudden changes in any give area would soon be averaged out. Mauna Loa was far enough away from human-produced effects and at a high enough elevation to avoid contamination that ground level sampling would be subject to. From what I have read, the measurements taken at other stations around the world over the years coincided with the measurements at Mauna Loa, so we shouldn't need another source for modern data collection.

The following graph is from a 2005 paper published in the journal Geology. You can find the paper here. I did a google image search to find a picture of the graph:

I was talking about the modern measurements of the last 50 years. That's paleoclimate data, and not even the most accurate paleoclimate research, as the Tripati study that I've posted several times from 2009 is the only one that can be correlated closely with the ice core samples of the last 800,000 years.

However, even at Mauna Loa, we see fluctuations, which are more or less dramatic depending on how one wishes to display the data. Here, for example, are the changes in annual growth rate:

It may be a matter of figure's lie and liars figure, since the numbers on that NOAA list I posted may have been the annual highs rather than an averaged out mean temperature measurement. The mean data would be skewed more by seasonal factors, while most of us want to know what are the highs and are they increasing.

You would if you looked at the list of monthly averages. The co2 cycle exhibits strong seasonal fluctuations:

Like I said before, over the last couple of years since I've been checking in on the CO2Now site, I can't recall seeing one monthly posting that was lower or unchanged from the month of the previous year. I know there are seasonal averages, but the trend is clearly going in one direction, and according to reports of late, the rate of increase has been accelerating -- all through the period of economic decline, when many observers had expected a slowing of greenhouse gas level increases...and that's why there is more concern and interest in studies done in the Arctic, looking for evidence of positive feedback effects.

On a graph showing annual fluctuations, this variability is significantly less (you can see from the black line). It does, however, dip.

Let me know when Co2 levels are back below 350. Bill McKibben will be able to shut down his organization and move on to other environment issues.

I've provided you with full access to the papers I referenced, but even more important: You are continually comparing one aspect of solar activity with temperature. However, most studies which find that the sun is the principal driver of the current warming do not think this is because of solar flares or sunspots but fluctuations in the suns magnetic field.

If you want more details, once again I provided links to the papers a few posts back. You can read them in their entirety.

And I forgot! I'll get around to it and see what I can make of them, but I did read through most of the first one, and left me wondering through all of his razzle dazzle of charts and stats, how he can claim that his theory on solar-forcing can explain recent global warming trend. The paper is four years old, so it's a little stale, but there was already a decline in solar activity going on in 2008. If he's going to take credit for the warming that occurred during the period of high solar activity, what about what's happening recently. Why are his conclusions so far from the ones that I posted previously from a recent NASA study that showed the link between the Sun and global warming going in opposite directions. Last year we learned that 2011 was the warmest year that occurred while the Pacific was in a La Nina period. The La Nina's when the Pacific is cooler, are usually cooler periods, especially for North America. So what can we expect when the Sun and other climate forcing factors are at their peaks?

Cosmic ray fluctuation is not related to solar radiation. The sun provides a magnetic shield which protects the earth. This, like irradiative emissions from the sun, fluctuates. It is these fluctuations which cause increases and decreases in galactic cosmic rays, not solar irradiance.

Can they be correlated with climate data, especially during the periods when the Earth's magnetic fields were reversing polarity? Even during periods where the Sun's magnetic fields were deflecting cosmic rays, I would expect something dramatic during the periods when the Earth's magnetic fields were completely shut down.

 

[shawn001]

That's just one source of CO2 measurements.

The following graph is from a 2005 paper published in the journal Geology. You can find the paper here. I did a google image search to find a picture of the graph:

The paper found a strong connection (albeit with a lag) between CO2 and temperature. And note that the highest point on the graph is, as we would expect, in the AGW period. However, the graph trends downward at the end, which we would not expect.

However, even at Mauna Loa, we see fluctuations, which are more or less dramatic depending on how one wishes to display the data. Here, for example, are the changes in annual growth rate:

You would if you looked at the list of monthly averages. The co2 cycle exhibits strong seasonal fluctuations:

On a graph showing annual fluctuations, this variability is significantly less. However, what you state here is not exactly correct:




That's true if we limit the data set to one site. The graph immediately below is taken from the NOAA's website and represents multiple sites. The actual annual fluctuations in measurements are given there as well:
Year ppm/yr Unc.
1980 1.75 0.19
1981 1.10 0.06
1982 1.04 0.22
1983 1.83 0.12
1984 1.18 0.12
1985 1.74 0.11
1986 1.05 0.18
1987 2.69 0.10
1988 2.23 0.10
1989 1.35 0.11
1990 1.22 0.10
1991 0.70 0.11
1992 0.69 0.12
1993 1.25 0.08
1994 1.68 0.14
1995 1.95 0.12
1996 1.07 0.08
1997 1.97 0.10
1998 2.84 0.14
1999 1.33 0.10
2000 1.24 0.13
2001 1.84 0.14
2002 2.41 0.08
2003 2.20 0.16
2004 1.58 0.06
2005 2.41 0.11
2006 1.79 0.11
2007 2.10 0.08
2008 1.80 0.06
2009 1.63 0.09
2010 2.35 0.09
2011 2.03 0.09

:




I've provided you with full access to the papers I referenced, but even more important: You are continually comparing one aspect of solar activity with temperature. However, most studies which find that the sun is the principal driver of the current warming do not think this is because of solar flares or sunspots but fluctuations in the suns magnetic field.

If you want more details, once again I provided links to the papers a few posts back. You can read them in their entirety.


:


Cosmic ray fluctuation is not related to solar radiation. The sun provides a magnetic shield which protects the earth. This, like irradiative emissions from the sun, fluctuates. It is these fluctuations which cause increases and decreases in galactic cosmic rays, not solar irradiance.

Testing the proposed link between cosmic rays and cloud cover

[0803.2298] Testing the proposed link between cosmic rays and cloud cover


Universe Today
Could Cosmic Rays Influence Global Warming?

Could Cosmic Rays Influence Global Warming?


Cosmic rays would also produce climate-cooling clouds and cool the earth, but that is the opposite of what were seeing.

Can you show a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades?

Cloud simulator tests climate models 2011

"The first results from the Cloud experiment at Cern show that cosmic rays cause a ten-fold increase in the formation rate of nanometre-sized aerosol particles. However, Dr Kirkby stressed that these particles are still far too small to seed clouds and so it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate."

Climate scientists point out that there is evidence to show that the sustained rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years cannot be explained by cosmic ray activity. They also point to a vast body of research pointing to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to be the cause. According to Professor Lockwood, it is very unlikely that variations in cosmic rays have played a significant role in recent warming.

"The result that will get climate change sceptics excited is that they have found that through the influence of sulphuric acid, ionisation can enhance the rate of water droplet growth. Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? No," he told BBC News.

Many arguments
Professor Lockwood says that the air-induced aerosols only grew to about 2 nanometres. To influence incoming or outgoing radiation to Earth, droplets must be of the order of 100 nanometres (nm). The growth rates would be really slow from 2 to 100nm because there simply is not enough sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.

"There are a great many arguments as to why the cosmic ray cloud effect is not a major driver of climate change and these results do not yet impinge on those arguments," he said.

BBC News - Cloud simulator tests climate models

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Unless I'm mistaken, the whole point behind the National Geographic Society decision to pick Mauna Loa for annual measurements was to test the hypothesis that atmospheric gases moved freely around the world, so that sudden changes in any give area would soon be averaged out.

I'll have to check up on this, but if memory serves that simply one area where good measurements could be taken, and so they were. It's also the (in terms of time span) the longest record. But now there are others. And if we look at the annual mean changes of the global set, while there is definitely a pronounced upwared trend, it does fluctuate even on a yearly basis.

I was talking about the modern measurements of the last 50 years. That's paleoclimate data, and not even the most accurate paleoclimate research

What is the most accurate paleoclimate record isn't certain, nor is it certain which proxy source is.

It may be a matter of figure's lie and liars figure, since the numbers on that NOAA list I posted may have been the annual highs rather than an averaged out mean temperature measurement.

No I think that you posted the annual means. But if you go to the NOAA's global record which includes other measurement sites (I posted the table), you no longer see an increase every year.

but the trend is clearly going in one direction, and according to reports of late, the rate of increase has been accelerating

It's definitely going up, that's true. As to the rate, I think I recall a recent slowing, but I have to look into it. In any event, it wouldn't really matter unless the increase actually slowed to the point of stopping.

-- all through the period of economic decline, when many observers had expected a slowing of greenhouse gas level increases...and that's why there is more concern and interest in studies done in the Arctic, looking for evidence of positive feedback effects.

Well a lot of interest seems to be about why/how increases in emission don't correspond regularly to increases in atmospheric content. We know that it isn't a linear correlation, but why it seems to fluctuate isn't fully understood. Neither is the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature.

The paper is four years old, so it's a little stale

Actually some of the most cited papers currently are from much earlier studies. Four years is nothing. For example, the main research on how surface records for individual sites should be adjusted was done in the 1990s.

Why are his conclusions so far from the ones that I posted previously from a recent NASA study that showed the link between the Sun and global warming going in opposite directions.

Because most of the studies on the effect of the sun aren't related to solar irradiance, and that's what your graph showed.

So what can we expect when the Sun and other climate forcing factors are at their peaks?

So far, we can't. We have identified a lot of cycles. But so far are predictive power is pretty dismal. All of our understanding comes from the past (naturally), but our ability to predict what will happen has so far been rather awful.

Can they be correlated with climate data, especially during the periods when the Earth's magnetic fields were reversing polarity?

It isn't the earth's magnetic field, but the sun's. And according to a lot of research the answer is yes. However, it's one thing to be able to correlate fluctuations in GCRs with temperature, and then explain it through the cloud-seeding effect of GCRs or the damage they do to the ozone. It's another thing to convincingly demonstrate that this is what happened. However, I remember reading a disparaging comment on realclimate (run by some big name scientists who are all AGW proponents) on the theory which I found ironic. It was basically a criticism of the theory because it rests on one of the least understood areas of climate science (cloud dynamics). However, so does AGW theory. So I found that rather ironic.

Even during periods where the Sun's magnetic fields were deflecting cosmic rays

The sun doesn't just have a gravitational field or a thermodynamic influence. The magnetic field controls the influx of cosmic particles into the earth's atmosphere, not the earth's magnetic field.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I gave you actual links to research on this issue but you still resort to quote mining. What's more, you are mining quotes you don't understand:

However, Dr Kirkby stressed that these particles are still far too small to seed clouds and so it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate."

In 2011, CERN's CLOUD project published the results of their first study in Nature. They are trying to replicate atmospheric conditions to understand cloud seeding. The first experiment showed some good results, and certainly did link GCRs with cloud seeding particles. However, they also noted that they 1) their first run didn't reproduce atmospheric conditions and 2) there remain a lot of uncertainties as to the mechanisms involved. From Kirby et al's Nature article (2011):

"Ground-level GCR ionization substantially increases the nucleation
rate of sulphuric acid and sulphuric acid–ammonia particles, by
between twofold and tenfold or more, provided that the nucleation
rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. Although we have
not yet duplicated the concentrations or complexities of atmospheric
organic vapours, we find that ion enhancement of nucleation occurs
for all temperatures, humidities and cluster compositions observed so
far. Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production
of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations
because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place
and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.
However, the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to
sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic
vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions
experimentally. These are important findings for the potential​

link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds"

According to Professor Lockwood, it is very unlikely that variations in cosmic rays have played a significant role in recent warming.

Yes, Lockwood disagrees. And Svensmark, Calder, and others agree with Kirby. And other scientists besides Lockwood disagree with them. That doesn't make the issue settled.

Many arguments

Right. I give you references to several peer-reviewed research articles, and you quote an interview to rebut.

Oh, and of course you misrepresent Kirby's findings and the meaning the quote you posted.


But continue to rely on the BBC rather than science, and quote mine even when you don't understand what you're quoting and proceed to misrepresent it. If that gets you through the day, rather than thinking about or approaching the issue like a scientist, go ahead.

 

[shawn001]

I gave you actual links to research on this issue but you still resort to quote mining. What's more, you are mining quotes you don't understand:



[/b]

In 2011, CERN's CLOUD project published the results of their first study in Nature. They are trying to replicate atmospheric conditions to understand cloud seeding. The first experiment showed some good results, and certainly did link GCRs with cloud seeding particles. However, they also noted that they 1) their first run didn't reproduce atmospheric conditions and 2) there remain a lot of uncertainties as to the mechanisms involved. From Kirby et al's Nature article (2011):

"Ground-level GCR ionization substantially increases the nucleation
rate of sulphuric acid and sulphuric acid–ammonia particles, by
between twofold and tenfold or more, provided that the nucleation
rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. Although we have
not yet duplicated the concentrations or complexities of atmospheric
organic vapours, we find that ion enhancement of nucleation occurs
for all temperatures, humidities and cluster compositions observed so
far. Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production
of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations
because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place
and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.
However, the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to
sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic
vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions
experimentally. These are important findings for the potential​

link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds"



Yes, Lockwood disagrees. And Svensmark, Calder, and others agree with Kirby. And other scientists besides Lockwood disagree with them. That doesn't make the issue settled.



Right. I give you references to several peer-reviewed research articles, and you quote an interview to rebut.

Oh, and of course you misrepresent Kirby's findings and the meaning the quote you posted.


But continue to rely on the BBC rather than science, and quote mine even when you don't understand what you're quoting and proceed to misrepresent it. If that gets you through the day, rather than thinking about or approaching the issue like a scientist, go ahead.

First off

Cosmic rays are not the only source of ionization in the atmosphere.


Who said that quote? How was it misrepresented?

"But, [Physicist Jasper] Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says. Nature, 8/24/11

"I gave you actual links to research on this issue"

Explain those research papers and what they really meant. I did read them. Post what they mean in your own words, like you have asked me to do since you say you understand this science so well.



"The CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. At least two of the other requirements (strengthening solar magnetic field, fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth) have not been met over the past 50 years. The lead scientist in the CERN CLOUD experiment explicitly stated that the experiment "actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate." Many other studies have concluded that cosmic rays play a minor role in cloud formation, and have not contributed in any significant way to the global warming over the past 50 years.


Cosmic rays would also produce climate-cooling clouds and cool the earth, but that is the opposite of what were seeing.

Can you show a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades?

"Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

• Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
• Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
• Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
• Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

Solar magnetic field strength correlates strongly with other solar activity, such as solar irradiance and sunspot number. As is the case with these other solar attributes, solar magnetic field has not changed appreciably over the past three decades (Lockwood 2001).

(which lists all the studies done and shows the graphs.)

--------------------------------------------

In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must achieve the following three steps.

• GCRs must induce aerosol formation
• These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently (through the condensation of gases in the atmosphere) to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
• The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation.

The first step is not controversial, and is being investigated by the CERN CLOUD experiment. A recent study by Enghoff et al. (2011) also demonstrated some success in inducing aerosol formation under laboratory conditions, although they have yet to test the process under atmospheric conditions.



However, the second step is often glossed over by those espousing the GCR warming theory. Freshly nucleated particles must grow by approximately a factor of 100,000 in mass before they can effectively scatter solar radiation or be activated into a cloud droplet (Verheggen 2009). Pierce and Adams (2009) investigated this second step by using a a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics in order to evaluate the growth rate of aerosols from changes in cosmic ray flux, and found that they are far too small to play a significant role in cloud formation or climate change.

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

Not that this isn't important science on aspects contributing to warming or colling even, but these are experiments first on GCR helping to form clouds to begin with!


So I ask you has the

Solar magnetic field have a long-term positive trend happening?

Has Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth show a long-term negative trend?

Has it been shown Cosmic rays can and must successfully seed low-level clouds?

Has it been shown we have had a Low-level cloud cover with a long-term negative trend?


Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth can either "contribute" to warming or cooling, which is it?


"some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet."

were at low solar activity


"Cosmic rays could also produce climate-cooling clouds and cool the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space.

But we know that is not happening either since the earth is holding more heat in then its releasing back into space.

Hopefully your not endorsing this as a primary cause of warming and disregarding the vast amount of evidence on greenhouse gasses?


and from the
International Journal of High-Energy Physics
CERN Courier

Cosmic rays, climate and the origin of life

Does ionization of the atmosphere produced by cosmic rays influence cloud cover? Analysis as a function of geomagnetic latitude suggests not. However, it is possible that cosmic rays may have a role in lightning, and perhaps even in the origin of life on Earth.

Cosmic rays, climate and the origin of life - CERN Courier