EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:


http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~mtodd/paper ... _total.pdf

The results suggest that variability in cosmic ray flux is a possible explanation of the
observed inter-annual variability in precipitation efficiency and precipitation in the southern
hemisphere mid and high latitude region. Of course, these statistical results do not prove a
causal relationship between the variables
.


and

Finally, certain caveats must be attached to interpretation of the results presented here. First, due to limitations in global observations of precipitation our study is based on data from a relatively short period. Second, errors in the data used are not uniform in space and time and are likely to be highest over the mid to high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. Third,
although we have tried to assess other possible influences on PE and P variability there
remains the possibility of other explanations of the observations.


It is not for certain as to whether the precipitation changes are caused by the GCR change, but as they also state in the conclusions...

Our results are broadly
consistent with this theory. As such, the strong similarity in the relationship of P and PE with
CRF is notable.


Which is why it was noted here, and should not be dismissed easily, as you are doing. Simply, that uncertainty monster is coming back again.

That is why the science is not settled.

The uncertainty monster still remains huge.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:07 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~mtodd/paper ... _total.pdf

The results suggest that variability in cosmic ray flux is a possible explanation of the
observed inter-annual variability in precipitation efficiency and precipitation in the southern
hemisphere mid and high latitude region. Of course, these statistical results do not prove a
causal relationship between the variables
.


and

Finally, certain caveats must be attached to interpretation of the results presented here. First, due to limitations in global observations of precipitation our study is based on data from a relatively short period. Second, errors in the data used are not uniform in space and time and are likely to be highest over the mid to high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. Third,
although we have tried to assess other possible influences on PE and P variability there
remains the possibility of other explanations of the observations.


It is not for certain as to whether the precipitation changes are caused by the GCR change, but as they also state in the conclusions...

Our results are broadly
consistent with this theory. As such, the strong similarity in the relationship of P and PE with
CRF is notable.


Which is why it was noted here, and should not be dismissed easily, as you are doing. Simply, that uncertainty monster is coming back again.

That is why the science is not settled.

The uncertainty monster still remains huge.


The uncertainty in this case is whether there is ANY causation from one to the other. That is a huge uncertainty you wish to ignore.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:10 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, it is uncertain BECAUSE THEY GAVE NO SPECIFIC AMOUNT in the paper. If you try to claim there is some level of uncertainty in the amount of contribution to this paper is is a blatent misrepresentation of the truth.



Right, they state that researchers are still actively investigating the causes of the recent oceanic warming, which implies that it is still an open question as to whether climate change is mostly anthropogenic or natural.


No it does no such thing. It mentions the associated research in passing with NO implication of which may or may not be more significant because they are not dealing with that in the paper.

Quote:
Quote:
As long as "moving on" means you cease to misrepresent the author's statements.


I think this argument has gone in circles, and is pointless, so I can agree to stop this pointless argument.


Good, as misrepresentation is unbecoming you.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:50 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:


The uncertainty in this case is whether there is ANY causation from one to the other. That is a huge uncertainty you wish to ignore.


I didn't say this means there was a causation, just that they're highly correlated to one another, which should be taken note. The authors do note that this is consistent with the GCR-Cloud theory, but are cautious with their results.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:04 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


The uncertainty in this case is whether there is ANY causation from one to the other. That is a huge uncertainty you wish to ignore.


I didn't say this means there was a causation, just that they're highly correlated to one another, which should be taken note.


The lack of causation removes the uncertainty you try to promote.

Quote:
The authors do note that this is consistent with the GCR-Cloud theory, but are cautious with their results.


As they should be. The problem I have is those, like yourself, who jump on something like this as if it is solid evidence even when the scientists producing the paper do not.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:24 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:


The lack of causation removes the uncertainty you try to promote.



Huh?

Because the authors say that the causation is not definite means that there is no effect from GCRs, and that means that there is no uncerainty?

:crazy:

Quote:
The problem I have is those, like yourself, who jump on something like this as if it is solid evidence even when the scientists producing the paper do not.


It is definitely possible evidence, and the authors do say it supports the theory, and they are simply cautious with their results.

The problem I have is that you try and make it look like as if this means that GCRs have no effect, when they most certainly can, it is just uncertain as to if this is a causation or not.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


The lack of causation removes the uncertainty you try to promote.



Huh?

Because the authors say that the causation is not definite means that there is no effect from GCRs, and that means that there is no uncerainty?

:crazy:


Yes, no uncertainty concerning the current theory as there is sufficient uncertainty with your preferred hypothesis to disregard it as being significant.

Quote:
Quote:
The problem I have is those, like yourself, who jump on something like this as if it is solid evidence even when the scientists producing the paper do not.


It is definitely possible evidence, and the authors do say it supports the theory, and they are simply cautious with their results.


It is possible evidence, but to refute a theory you need real evidence.

Quote:
The problem I have is that you try and make it look like as if this means that GCRs have no effect, when they most certainly can, it is just uncertain as to if this is a causation or not.


they may have an effect, but based on current evidence, not a significant effect.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, no uncertainty concerning the current theory as there is sufficient uncertainty with your preferred hypothesis to disregard it as being significant.


If there is uncertainty with the GCR hypothesis, naturally there will be uncertainty with the CO2 hypothesis, since there would be an unknown amount of warming that GCRs have caused over the last 100 years.

So using your logic, we can discount the CO2 theory is not being significant, since there are uncertainties that surround it as well.

Quote:
It is possible evidence, but to refute a theory you need real evidence.


To even suggest a theory, there needs to be some evidence, but this is not present with the CO2 theory.

Quote:
they may have an effect, but based on current evidence, not a significant effect.


Jusitifcation for this claim?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, no uncertainty concerning the current theory as there is sufficient uncertainty with your preferred hypothesis to disregard it as being significant.


If there is uncertainty with the GCR hypothesis, naturally there will be uncertainty with the CO2 hypothesis, since there would be an unknown amount of warming that GCRs have caused over the last 100 years.


Not necessarily, as until there is some evidence of an effect there is no connection to add uncertainty.

Quote:
So using your logic, we can discount the CO2 theory is not being significant, since there are uncertainties that surround it as well.


No, the uncertainties in your preferred hypothesis start with the lack of evidence for a mechanism, which is not the case with GHG.

Quote:
Quote:
It is possible evidence, but to refute a theory you need real evidence.


To even suggest a theory, there needs to be some evidence, but this is not present with the CO2 theory.


Actually, there is. The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere coupled with the evidence of how GHGs work gives a theory supported by measurements .... unlike the cosmic ray mechanisms.

Quote:
Quote:
they may have an effect, but based on current evidence, not a significant effect.


Jusitifcation for this claim?


The results of the CERN experiments which showed an insufficient level of nucliation for observed climate impact even with the multiplication factors included.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10343.html

.Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Note the trend from 1950 onward.

Image

Then compare the cosmic ray cycle for a similar trend.

http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonito ... tron2.html

See one?

The authors of this paper had a similar problem.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publika ... ki/r47.pdf

Note that between 1979 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux. although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of the rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:54 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
I'm reposting a post I just made on my blog to this post.

There have been a few myths propagated on the "mainstream" side of the climate debate. One of these myths is that since there has been no trend in Cosmic Rays over the last 50 years, they can not be causing warming. This is not true at all.

Image

The figure above compares the number of sunspots in green, to the Cosmic Ray Intensity (CRI) in blue.

Image


The figure above shows the yearly global temperatures over the last 140 years, and the error bars for these yearly global temperatures. Comparing the Cosmic Ray Intensity to this graph, a slight increase in the minima of the Cosmic Ray Intensity from 1955-1970 corresponds well to a flatline in temperatures from 1940-1975.

The CRI then plummeted to a record low in 1992, which corresponds to a temperature increase during this period. Also note that towards the end, the temperatures have recently flatlined, as cosmic ray intensities have gone up slightly.

Image


This figure from Dorman 2012 above combines the global temperature anomalies to the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) from 1937-1994. There is a very good correspondance between the two variables, suggesting that Cosmic Rays (modulated by solar activity) play a large and dominant role in current climate change.

Not sure how Krivova and Solanki get an increase in the GCR counts in the 1990s, when GCRs reached a record low in 1992.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:20 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html


Now look at this section from the full paper:

We find that ion induced
binary nucleation proceeds at a significant rate in the cool
temperatures of the free troposphere at atmospheric concentrations
of sulphuric acid
, and may be an important process when ternary
vapour concentrations are low.


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
.


Because the primary source of ions in the global
troposphere
is galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), their role in atmospheric
nucleation is of considerable interest as a possible physical mechanism
for climate variability caused by the Sun


That's a little bit different than what you are trying to portray, Wayne.

Note that the Boundary layer could be as low as a few meters from the surface, but it is largely dependent on the local meteorology. Low Clouds can be as high as 6,500-8,000 feet, so GCR induced ionization could play a prominent role in the formation of low clouds in the troposphere, as hypothesized by Svensmark.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:28 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
I'll be back to reply to the rest of your posts, Wayne.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:26 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
I'm reposting a post I just made on my blog to this post.

There have been a few myths propagated on the "mainstream" side of the climate debate. One of these myths is that since there has been no trend in Cosmic Rays over the last 50 years, they can not be causing warming. This is not true at all.


It it were the direct influence some suggest, why would the disconnect occur in the last 50 years?

Quote:
Image

The figure above compares the number of sunspots in green, to the Cosmic Ray Intensity (CRI) in blue.

Image


The figure above shows the yearly global temperatures over the last 140 years, and the error bars for these yearly global temperatures. Comparing the Cosmic Ray Intensity to this graph, a slight increase in the minima of the Cosmic Ray Intensity from 1955-1970 corresponds well to a flatline in temperatures from 1940-1975.


The cosmic rays impacted the temperature 15 years in advance and for 5 years following? If one looks at the trend from 1950 for both sets of data, so there is no cherry-picking, the trend in temperature is not seen in the cosmic rays. Why would that be if there is such a strong influence on the temperature by cosmic rays and only cosmic rays?

Quote:
The CRI then plummeted to a record low in 1992, which corresponds to a temperature increase during this period. Also note that towards the end, the temperatures have recently flatlined, as cosmic ray intensities have gone up slightly.

Image


This figure from Dorman 2012 above combines the global temperature anomalies to the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) from 1937-1994. There is a very good correspondance between the two variables, suggesting that Cosmic Rays (modulated by solar activity) play a large and dominant role in current climate change.

Not sure how Krivova and Solanki get an increase in the GCR counts in the 1990s, when GCRs reached a record low in 1992.


Or could it be the other way around?

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group