Two events loom on the horizon that might settle the issue once and for all; one shaped by human hands, one entirely natural.
At Cern, the giant European physics facility, an experiment called Cloud is being constructed which will research the notion that cosmic rays can stimulate the formation of droplets and clouds. There may be some results within three or four years.
By then, observations suggest that the Sun’s output may have started to wane from its “grand maximum”.
If it does, and if Henrik Svensmark is right, we should then see cosmic rays increase and global temperatures start to fall; if that happens, he can expect to see a Nobel Prize and thousands of red-faced former IPCC members queuing up to hand back the one they have just received.
But if the Sun wanes and temperatures on our planet continue to rise, as the vast majority of scientists in the field believe, the solar-cosmic ray concept of global warming can be laid to eternal rest.
BBC News website: Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If, if, if, if.
That two graphs juxtaposing the cosmic ray count and temperatures half way through the article is a little too cute…
The level of smoothing on the bottom temperature graph is wound up to the max – it’s done on a multi year basis (probably 5 year or more) – otherwise the 1998/1999 spike/dip would show up. On the other hand the top cosmic ray count graph is likely to be smoothed on a monthly basis and shows a lot more variation.
If the same multi-year smoothing was applied to the top graph it would show a cosmic ray decrease of the same magnitude as the temp increase. Imagine a line of best fit on this…
Can’t help it – when I see obvious distortions like this I have to think that there is an underlying agenda… Even I (without knowing a bit more of the facts), after reading this article and seeing this graph would logically assume Svensmark’s theory is crap.
I’m surprised that lovely curve of the Mauna Loa CO2 graph isn’t included right underneath.
Agenda objective achieved.
sigh…
Arnost,
Mauna Loa is independently verified by our own observations at Cape Grim.
SJT says, “If, if, if, if.”
Indeed! Just like the warming claims. The only difference is that this one can and is being tested.
Walter Starck
Walter – “The only difference is that this one can and is being tested.”
Not really as a cloud chamber in CERN is a bit different to the Earths atmosphere. Assuming a positive result just because cosmic rays can help form clouds this does not mean that it does in the real atmosphere and it does not mean that it helps form the correct type of clouds to reflect more radiation than they trap.
This would only be a very preliminary step along the way for the cosmic ray cloud theory quite apart from the fact that cosmic ray flux has remained pretty steady and has not swung downwards in line with global temperatures swinging upward if indeed that is what they do.
Arnost, I checked with my own copy of the temp records and the only way one could get a temperature graph like the one shown is with an 11 year or longer moving average. The five year graph shows a clear bump for 1998 and a similar dip in 1992.
Note also that their graph only goes till 2002? When the the numbers to 2006 are included we have a pronounced dip in the five year average but none in an 11 year average, for the very obvious reason that the past has a stronger weighting in the longer interval.
Funny, I seem to recall a certain film maker who was visciously pilloried for leaving out recent data that failed the test of convenience. But I guess Luke must have a different standard for things that happened long, long ago, in a Galaxy far, far away.
Re: “a Nobel Prize and thousands of red-faced former IPCC members queuing up”
And you can bet it would not be a “Peace” prize, as the “feel good” faction of the AGW religion would never allow that. Some will drink champaign, others beer, but many of the ig- ig- ig- ignorant AGW masses will be sipping a creative concoction of kool-aid…
Paul – you need to make your post more obvious that it is a quote from the link. You can easily get the impression at first glance that you wrote the text not quoted it out of the link.
What a shoddy effort – I’m with Arnost and Ian ; there appears to have been an underlying intention to deceive.
Pretty much the same accusation levelled at TGGWS use of cherry picked graphical data……
Those graphs came from the Proceedings of the Royal Society, not Svensmark, if one takes the trouoble to actually read the BBC (hardly an unbiassed commentator). SO the BBC is really being cute, isn’t it.
And as far as cosmic rays are concerned, these are electrically charged particles travelling in through the thin electric plasma of space. These “rays” are actually electric currents that power the sun according to plasma-universe theory. SO yes, fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux will indeed affect the earth’s climate, and in more ways than some of these envisioned here.
Arnost, Ian Mott, Jim–
You guys are delusional. Stop being so paranoid and conspiratorial.
The figure is adapted from Lockwood and Frolich (2007) in Proceedings of Royal Society A. It’s Figure 3. The smoothing is exactly the same on both curves, about 10.5 years. It doesn’t even remotely look like one is smoothed “monthly” while the other is smoothed multi-year…Obviously wouldn’t do so hot in a first-year time series analysis class, eh?
Of course the data are cut off at 2002, since they are smoothed. The first 5 and a bit years are missing too. Those data points aren’t included because the smoothing cannot be properly applied without the future data (i.e. you need data from up to 2012 to include 2007 in there smoothing scheme).
THERE IS NO HIDDEN AGENDA! The paper is quite clear about the methodology of the smoothing, and even shows smoothing over different periods, etc. If you want to see the unsmoothed data, look at figure 1 in the paper.
I love it. “There is no hidden agenda”, trust me, I’m from the IPCC.
And the reason for opting for a 10 year smoothing instead of a five or 3 year smoothing is? Nice try CL but the first five years of the series need not have been excluded because the previous data was always available.
What we can be certain of is that as the latest data shows more and more of a reversal of trend, the climate mafia will use longer and longer smoothing to obscure that break of trend.
Ian
self parody at it’s finest.
Arnost – “Can’t help it – when I see obvious distortions like this I have to think that there is an underlying agenda… Even I (without knowing a bit more of the facts), after reading this article and seeing this graph would logically assume Svensmark’s theory is crap.”
So you don’t know the facts however you can still jump to the conclusion that there is an underlying agenda. Why not research the facts like CL did rather than jump to conclusions that you cannot support.
Even if you applied the unsmoothed temperature data there is still an upward swing in temperatures and no corresponding downward swing in cosmic ray flux. There is no way that the cosmic ray graph is a monthly series. Where is the upswing in temperatures between 1975 and 1987 when cosmic ray flux plummeted?
CL & Ender – it is you who have missed the point ; the link is to a newspaper article which employs the same selective representation of data that TGGWS supposedly did.
This caused AGW enthusiasts to howl in outrage.
Ian and Arnost’s points stand – the data presented is technically correct but misleading.
Why is questionning the possible intent so outrageous?
It’s not as if the warmers are exactly paragons of virtue when it comes to assuming only good faith from those who present a different view?
OK – CL has a point. Conceded. I did not recognise the Lockwood and Frohlich graphs without the lovely red and blue effects.
This is figure 4d from the same paper. The grey line represents the Climax Cosmic ray measurements – the same as those in fig 3d.
http://i19.tinypic.com/4osa1p5.jpg
[ (d) is a regression fit to [10Be] from early neutron monitor and ionization chamber data before 1955 and to the Climax cosmic ray counts after 1955. ]
This picture tells a completely different story.
(Be10 is an isotope produced by the interaction of cosmic rays and nitrogen in the atmosphere and thereby a proxy for cosmic rays – I guess that if it’s in this paper we don’t have to argue).
As the graph clearly indicates, cosmic rays HAVE declined over the last century in trend negatively correlated to the temperature – and this after all is the core of the Svensmark thesis that a reduction in Cosmic Rays has reduced the cloud cover thereby driving temperatures up over the centennial period.
The fact remains that what is on the whole a reasonable article is skewed by a graph of cherry picked SECTIONS of what was in the paper that completely undercuts the text and on the face of it, makes the Svensmark argument look absolutely foolish.
Given that the very pretty graphs were not simply lifted from the L&F paper and reproduced, this implies that this article was obviously not only biased by an editorial view – but the graphs were provided when vetted to ensure that it conformed to the party line.
Agenda objective achieved.
cheers
Arnost
Richard Black is a true believer in computer models and AGW. An interesting article nevertheless.
“And Giles Harrison believes climate sceptics need to apply the same scepticism to the cosmic ray theory as they do to greenhouse warming…”
The same is true of climate alarmists who need to be more critical of the CO2 hypothesis.
As a practising earth scientist, trying to understand earth processes when the goal posts were changed to include external factors, makes life difficult.
There is not a corpus of knowledge of a scientific nature on which to rely but discoveries in the area of Plasma Physics, and its correlatives, the Plasma Universe, offer testable alternatives.
That is where I am at. Luke, Ender and their cohorts remain in their Victotorian world of gravitational dominated computerised realities, blissfully, thank God, unaware of their predicament.
What a load of waffly bumkum and drivel Louis. Tell us something useful. And gee for a practising earth scientist was that ZERO publications in Google Scholar. When you stand by for a decent debate instead of a random dry by shooting you might get some respect.
What a massive bullshit beatup. Some journo gets some figures out of context. The Wall St journal make an art-form out of crap journalism on AGW. So from this our resident gimps like Mott have now turned it into an IPCC conspiracy. Read the friggin paper. Look at the raw data if you’re sooo concerned. Oh that’s right Ian will have have read it already – ROTFL !! Yea sure. Shoot first – engage brain later.
Hmmn, a dummy spit by the boy blunder? Must have hit the mark then, eh?
When the IPCC publicly takes Al Gore to task for his bull$hit misrepresentation of the science, there will be the beginnings of a case to exclude the IPCC from “the conspiracy”. Not before, bozo.
To ignore is to condone, always has been.
Luke,
I am an economic geologist so academic publications are not very high on the agenda. I have instead written hundreds of exploration reports documenting the science of geology that are submitted to the various mines departments. And remember that exploration geologists are the examplars of the scientific method – for we have to test each and every hypothesis by drilling and sampling. Success means a new mine. Failure means wasting a lot of shareholders funds. Keep the failure rate up and one is quickly out of a job.
And this year I found more new mineralisation from drilling, as I did last year. Reason I am still employed.
As for your rejection of the ideas of plasma physics, you obviously seem unware that the topic “Plasma Universe” is now a mainstream area of scientific study deemed by the IEEE and now recently by the physicists.
ANd now Spencer et al, in their latest paper in GRL point out that climate scientists “assumed” that increasing surface temperatures would increase cloud cover and built that assumption into the climate models. Note ASSUMED.
Measurements and observations showed that what happened was Cirrus cloud reduction, totally unexpected. So not only are the much vaunted climate models intrincially biased to predicting warming by the assumption (untested) of climate sensitivity, but now we find that the forcing based on increased cloud cover was an assumption not based in empiricism.
As I have repeatedly written here – AGW is junk science.
And Luke,
I have to work for a living, so I have little time to spend reading your ad hominems, if and when I encounter them.
So you will have put up with my occasional drive and shoot posts.
Oh so we’re not actually a practising earth “scientist” after all – we’re just a rock jock eh? mmmm yes … how surprising. (Not!)
Writing hack geology reports is not within a bulls roar of a decent science paper.
Was that the Spencer who couldn’t sort out his own satellite data? How many goes to get it right.
Louis you’re clueless about climate modelling and climate science and just sprout utter bullshit. We just commit your every word to the bit bucket. It’s pure drivel.
Louis
what a classic
you ignore the mountains of scientific evidence Luke posts, and only ever respond to his taunts. Why?
“hack geology” indeed, Luke. Andrew Forrest is a $billion richer this week because he relied on “hack geology”.
But if you can find someone with a nice waterfront property who, instead, relies on your “peer reviewed science” on sea level rise, then please let me know, I’ll gladly pay him a price based on what you turkeys think the land will be worth in year 2070.
You’re a third rate mind in a low rent rendezvous.
Ian’s hand waving defence – a willy size comparison. And does Forrest dig his won holes….. You’ll be telling us you’re also a practising earth scientist soon. ROTFL.
Hack Geologist?
Well good to see I haven’t lost my ability to cause lefty looneys to froth and foam at the mouth when they are confronted by contradictory facts.
And SJT, you mean mountains of propaganda son’t you?
AGW theory has been comprehensively falsified by observation and measurement, so it is end of story.
Now what is the real reason we need to reduce CO2 emissions? Not to stop the earth’s surface from warming.
Now let’s not get diverted here Louis. You told us you were a practising earth scientist. But you haven’t published anything in the science journal literature it seems so you can’t be a scientist after all.
So when you emphatically tell us that AGW is falsified it’s as some rock mechanic not a real scientist. And we know by now that you haven’t read any of the science papers we’ve provided you over years, and we know many NON-scientists prefer to not read literature that requires some level of intellectual effort. Ranting op-ed pieces are much easier aren’t they.
So really it seems then that you’re simply commentating personal opinion which is about as useful as witchcraft theory.
So you wouldn’t be having us on would you – i.e. taking a lend of us or pulling our legs would you.
Actually did receive a most stimulating presentation from a REAL practising earth scientist (and also rock jock) the other day – He’s a tad sceptical but one seemed to able to indulge in a high level of robust discussion. So I thought to myself isn’t it refreshing to be able to have a sensible discussion for a change.
And golly gee Louis we certainly don’t want to stop the Earth’s surface warming every day. That would make things a tad chilly.
Luke,
I am a practising earth scientist Luke, and I use the science of geology to find mineral deposits. I do science every day so clearly you have little idea of what science is.
Which raises the point – what scientific training have you been instructed in? I am sure everyone would love to know the educational basis for your comments here.
Nah Louis – scientists do science – I think you’re just a rock mechanic. Doctors might use medical science every day too but doesn’t make them medical researchers or scientists does it.
Thanks Luke.
🙂
Well Luke – anyone reading your comments on this blog wouldn’t have thought there were ANY sensible sceptics.
What is “sensible” AGW scepticism?
Jim – the unhelpful stuff usually has all the telltale signs of political propaganda – rants and wailing against the IPCC, BoM, CSIRO, the UN, greenies etc.
You’ve seen useful scepticism here recently on the influence of decadal trends of a SCIENTIFIC nature.
Pro-AGW sites like RC and Stoat quite often hose down reports they think are overhyped. i.e. scepticism of some claims.
On the surface McIntyre himself is usefully sceptical – however his indulgence of a rabid cheer squad is not.
Most reasonable people want good science; but you’ll always get a fight when critics simply are making sophistic arguments to rubbish the entire scientific effort for purely political motives.
Granted Luke – sincerely – but isn’t the same true of the AGWer’s?
” A rabid cheer squad ” spouting “political propoganda” is a pretty fair description of so many in the AGW camp.
I agree that “most reasonable people want good science” but why don’t the rational AGW proponents more forcefully and clearly condemn the AGW rabid cheer squad?
Or put the political considerations of solutions such as nuclear ahead of the scientific?
errr the IPCC by the virtue of its reporting do so. RC and Stoat as I mentioned above knock stuff on the head that doesn’t check out.
In comparison anti-AGW is “any old iron”. Don’t worry if its utter bilge and drivel – any anti-argument will do. Just chuck it in and keep heaving anything you can get your hands on.
And the threshold test here on this blog is that I never see ANY on the anti-AGW side pulling people up on bad papers or bad arguments. It’s about “sides” and “tribes” and “teams”.
Unless it’s a guest post – every single post here will be anti-AGW. This is fair and balanced Jim ?
I noticed Judith Curry’s comment here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comments at 167
“I’ve been watching this thread with great interest, since climateaudit hasn’t typically (to my notice anyways) taken on a serious critique of a critique of MBH (if that is too many critiques, basically an anti-hockey stick paper). If SteveM and the posters can make detailed and constructive critiques of Craig’s paper (and engage constructively with Craig in further work), then the credibility of this site in terms of bonafide scientific skepticism will increase (as opposed to denialist/contrarian idiots or whatever the guys at Pharyngula were saying).
……….”