EnviroLink Forum

Yes, the correlation without a mechanism is not evidence of causation. The missing link is the mechanism by which the impact occurs. CERN's data shows insufficient mechanisms, which leaves only a correlation between the two. I could show a similar correlation between pirates and temperatue, but without a mechanism to show causation it is only a correlation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

They also said that GCRs enhance the nucleation rate by up to ten times that of normal rates in the troposphere, which is a significant rate, and changes in the GCRs can impact climate, though how significant this impact is, is still up the air.



See for example:

http://ftp.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty ... 202009.pdf

http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/hellab/Obridko/dorman.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2 ... 2536.shtml

http://seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5156v1.pdf



The GCR Flux, ACRIM TSI, the AA Index, the Solar Flux, and the Solar Cycle length all point to increasing solar activity since the 1970s.



The authors of the study found that up to 70% of the warming can be attributed to the sun over the 20th Century. That is an extremely large portion for the 20th Century. The rest could be due to various other things, like the PDO/AMO, land use changes, and CO2.



There is no problem with 'the recent period.' Look at the charts from Scafetta and West 07 and Dorman 12.



No it is not.



Then can you explain Fall et. al 2011's discovery that in the best sited stations, there is no significant DTR trend, while in the worst quality (urban contaminated) stations, there was a trend downwards?

Fall et. al 2011 finds that in the CRN 5 weather stations, there is a significant decrease in the DTR range. Keep in mind that the CRN 5 stations are the worst quality stations, with many of them being impacted by urbanization.



The graph above shows the trends in the diurnal temperature range for each type of weather station. There is no statistically significant trend in the diurnal temperature range for the best quality stations, wheras in the urbanized stations there is a statistically significant decrease in the DTR. What does this mean? It means that urbanization could account for most or all of the decrease in the DTR for most of the weather stations, since the highest quality weather stations do not display a trend in the DTR.

This also means that CO2 is not the driver of climate change in the best quality weather stations, or else we still would have observed a statistically significant decrease in the DTR in these non-urbanized weather stations, since there is no urban effect to contaminate the trends in the DTR in the best quality weather stations.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

The key statement was INSUFFICIENT, especially if we remove the subjective claim aspects of what MAY be found in the future. The evidence we have now is against this hypothesis.



You do understand what "evidence for a mechanism" is do you not? Statements of correlation are not evidence of a mechanism.



Evidence which has been contradicted by two other studies, including CERN,which is not very promising.



Since the 1970s to today? Really? Maybe if you ignore some of the data ... errr a lot of the data.



Up to 70% which means nothing concrete, correct? It could b2 70%, or 50%, or 25%, or even less and the statement would be just a valid. Now, if it is a cause and effect why does the temperature diverge ONLY in the most recent period?



There is a problem with the graph you used, and now you wish to play switch to another set? That smacks of cherry picking to me.



But you will claim an unevidenced mechanism is evidence of causation when I asked for it in this thread? Yes, the correlation with an evidenced mechanism is evidence of causation especially if there is no way to do a control.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Huh? Did you start on an entirely new discussion in the middle or what? Are the best quality stations supposed to be coastal to disprove the coastal aspect, or is it just support for my non-urban statement?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein