[CanadianJeff]

No sasquatsh like studying how cultures that still hunt and gather food rather then grow it have more social equality in their cultures and how having a lack of technology has some benefits we may not in a technological society be fully aware of.

Advanced may not have been the best choice for a word there either. Industrial would be more suiting. And less industrial soceity does not simply refer to ONLY third world countries either it refers in part as well to socities that reject technology and other "Advances" such as the first order menonites in southern Manitoba and south western Ontario.

Sorry Industrial would have been a far better choice of words then what I used but still. Stop trying to twist words around to your own ends. If your not sure ASK.

[Psudo]

CanadianJeff, I have to commend your open-mindedness. I really am impressed by your willingness to change your mind when presented with facts.

sasquatch2, studying 3rd world countries for anthropology research makes sense, even with all of your objections to middle eastern cultures. The Middle East is not the only source of 3rd world cultures; Yora, Yine, and Amahuaca in the Amazon; Amish and (as Jeff mentions) Mennonites and various Caribbean cultures in North America; various unindustrialized cultures of western China and southern Asia. Many of them are ethically advanced despite their technological backward lifestyles, promoting family, order, and respect for society: virtues we rightly respect.

[Calbeck]

A wise man once said: "Every tenth man has something to teach you". And a favorite of mine is "Wisdom from fools remains wisdom".

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

RealClimate begins their rebuttal with the quote "Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws." Which, coincidentally, is identical to the criticism of Mann's so-called "Hockey Stick" graph ("MBH98 reconstruction" if you prefer) by McIntyre and McKitrick. Makes me wonder why one rebuttal is to be ignored and the other is to be taken as sacrosanct.

The graph at the bottom of the article is compares only the galactic cosmic rays (GCR) count against the magnetic activity index (called "aa-index" there). The study I linked doesn't attempt to portray a correlation there, but rather a correlation between GCR and low level cloud formation. They don't match because this entire RC article refers to a 1991 article by the same scientists. The study I linked to mentions the years 1994 and 1995 internally. Thus, it cannot have been produced until later, perhaps October 3rd 2006 as suggested by my JunkScience.com link.

Your RealClimate link responds to the wrong study and, thus, doesn't respond at all.

First of all, note that the Svensmark's paper referred to in the post is from 1998, not 1991. Svensmark's paper from 2006 deals with an experiment regarding the production of cloud condensation nuclei by cosmic rays. The correlation between GCR and clouds is not discussed in that paper. (RealClimate does have a post regarding this paper too.)

Although the criticism by Damon and Laut is mentioned it isn't central to the argument presented in the RC post, which was that there is no observed trend in either GCR or cloudiness. If you look at Svensmark's plots you see GCR count and cloudiness moving in cycles on roughly decade scale. So even these had an effect on climate as Svensmark asserts, how could they explain a warming trend that has gone on for several decades?

Furthermore, remember the text by Svensmark which you quoted earlier:

Henrik Svensmark wrote:

The 2% changes in low cloud cover in just 5 years, as seen in Figure 4, should vary the heating at the Earth’s surface by an average of about 1.2 watt per square metre. That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watt per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all of the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution.

Note that his estimate for the amount of radiative forcing is still lower than the one for the CO2 increase. That 1.4 W/m² figure is apparently from the Third Assessment Report. The Fourth Assessment Report puts it at 1.66 W/m² and it's only going to increase in the coming years. Also, there are other greenhouse gases than CO2. The most important of them is methane for which the corresponding number is 0.48 W/m².

Psudo wrote:

Something less than 2,400 scientists supporting the IPCC compared with something more than 200 (the number of petition signers you conceded were likely both Ph.D.s in related sciences and genuine supporters of the petition). At least 8% (200:2400) disagree with the "consensus". In most statistical analysis, a probability of coincidence (p-value) must be less than 5% for the study to be relevant. Using that as a metaphor, the consensus is insufficient to be relevant.

Comparing the number of signers from an open petition to the relatively narrow group of IPCC contributers is little bit unfair. Such comparison is not really worth much.

Psudo wrote:

also Myles Allen, IPCC lead author, whose distributed computing climate modeling has demonstrated (Nature, Jan '05) the ability of only slight changes to the parameters within plausible ranges to dramatically alter apparent climate sensitivities, a claim long heralded by AGW sketpics.

If you look at the obtained probability distribution you'll notice that it has a long tail in specifically the positive direction. That means that they difficulty ruling out the very high climate sensitivities rather than low ones. This is not a reason to be more complacent about the role of GHGs in the warming.

[Psudo]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Henrik Svensmark wrote:

The 2% changes in low cloud cover in just 5 years, as seen in Figure 4, should vary the heating at the Earth’s surface by an average of about 1.2 watt per square metre. That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watt per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all of the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution.

Note that his estimate for the amount of radiative forcing is still lower than the one for the CO2 increase. That 1.4 W/m² figure is apparently from the Third Assessment Report. The Fourth Assessment Report puts it at 1.66 W/m² and it's only going to increase in the coming years. Also, there are other greenhouse gases than CO2. The most important of them is methane for which the corresponding number is 0.48 W/m².

Even comparing total historic influence, cosmic rays' 1.2 W/m² is very near to 1.66 W/m². From that perspective, perhaps they should be considered twin drivers of global climate. At the very least, the influence of carbon on global temperature should be calculated by subtracting the effect of cosmic radiation from the equation.

But note that the 1.4 W/m² figure and 1.66 W/m² figure are both cumulative over the course of a century of industrial carbon production, while the 1.2 W/m² is due to a 5 year fluctuation in radiation. For a rate of change of wattage comparison, consider that during the 6 years between the 2001 TAR and the 2007 FAR, there was a 0.26 W/m² change, as compared to 1.2 W/m² over 5 years from cosmic radiation. Scaled to time, the influence of cosmic rays over surface temperature is about five times as strong as industrial carbon. Is rate of influence of global temperature irrelevant? I don't see why.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Comparing the number of signers from an open petition to the relatively narrow group of IPCC contributers is little bit unfair. Such comparison is not really worth much.

I didn't do that. That would have been 19,000 to 2400. I added inclusion criteria and estimated how many met that extra criteria. Actually, I left out a relevant criteria that would have limited the IPCC numbers even more: I don't know how many of those 2400 are government decision-makers rather than scientists. Some certainly are, but whether it's 1% or 99% is unknown to me.

The most effective method would be to verify all 19,000 petition signatories and all 2400 IPCC names, but that's impractical. Even more accurate and impractical would be to poll every climate scientist on the planet. Far easier and less accurate would be to accept the claims of consensus at face value, but the whole point of estimating numbers of scientists on each side of the issue is to test that claim. Do you have a more reasonable methodology for testing the claim of consensus?

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Myles Allen (Nature, Jan '05)

If you look at the obtained probability distribution you'll notice that it has a long tail in specifically the positive direction. That means that they difficulty ruling out the very high climate sensitivities rather than low ones.

I know. Skeptics claim that climate modeling can be manipulated towards high variability in order for a climate modeler to make a name for themselves. Myles Allen proves that's possible. The motivations for bias are there. It's circumstantial evidence of bias in the data, sure, but it's sufficient for an investigation before we start legislating.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

Even comparing total historic influence, cosmic rays' 1.2 W/m² is very near to 1.66 W/m². From that perspective, perhaps they should be considered twin drivers of global climate. At the very least, the influence of carbon on global temperature should be calculated by subtracting the effect of cosmic radiation from the equation.

What I said about the size of the forcings was just a side comment. The fact remains that there's no observed downward trend in either cosmic rays or clouds. They could perhaps explain fluctuations in temperature but I don't how they could explain a persistent upward trend in temperature.

Psudo wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Comparing the number of signers from an open petition to the relatively narrow group of IPCC contributers is little bit unfair. Such comparison is not really worth much.

I didn't do that. That would have been 19,000 to 2400. I added inclusion criteria and estimated how many met that extra criteria. Actually, I left out a relevant criteria that would have limited the IPCC numbers even more: I don't know how many of those 2400 are government decision-makers rather than scientists. Some certainly are, but whether it's 1% or 99% is unknown to me.

The most effective method would be to verify all 19,000 petition signatories and all 2400 IPCC names, but that's impractical. Even more accurate and impractical would be to poll every climate scientist on the planet. Far easier and less accurate would be to accept the claims of consensus at face value, but the whole point of estimating numbers of scientists on each side of the issue is to test that claim. Do you have a more reasonable methodology for testing the claim of consensus?

What I meant was that there are many climatologists that believe in AGW but probably only a small portion of them are going to work directly for IPCC whereas potentially any skeptical climatologist could sign a petition.

Unfortunately I don't know of any reliable polls or things like that. I guess my main reason for believing that the consensus is good enough are the statements by numerous scientific organizations (which I mentioned in an earlier post).

Psudo wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

If you look at the obtained probability distribution you'll notice that it has a long tail in specifically the positive direction. That means that they difficulty ruling out the very high climate sensitivities rather than low ones.

I know. Skeptics claim that climate modeling can be manipulated towards high variability in order for a climate modeler to make a name for themselves. Myles Allen proves that's possible.

Sure one can by choosing the parameters appropriately produce sensitivities of 10 K and higher for doubling of CO2. But isn't that a moot point since the sensitivities I've heard predicted as most likely are not in the high end and one does not need the highest values to justify action anyway.

When the climatologists use computer models they run several simulations (though not as many as the guys at climateprediction.net, of course) slightly varying the used parameters to get a range of sensitivities. Are you suggesting a deliberate falsification of data?

Psudo wrote:

It's circumstantial evidence of bias in the data, sure, but it's sufficient for an investigation before we start legislating.

No, that in itself isn't evidence of bias in the data.

Calbeck wrote:

Well, more and more scientists are now concluding that even if humanity as a whole goes to zero emissions tomorrow, there is an unavoidable catastrophe coming.

I've not heard that grim predictions. Where are you getting this?

[Psudo]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

What I said about the size of the forcings was just a side comment. The fact remains that there's no observed downward trend in either cosmic rays or clouds. They could perhaps explain fluctuations in temperature but I don't how they could explain a persistent upward trend in temperature.

No downward trend in cosmic rays or clouds correlates with a persistent upward trend in global temperature. This suggests that cosmic rays' and clouds may be driving global temperature; that is, having more of an impact on global temperature than human carbon emissions. The size of the forcings agrees. As such, the warming trend should end naturally when cosmic rays' influence cycles naturally.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

there are many climatologists that believe in AGW but probably only a small portion of them are going to work directly for IPCC whereas potentially any skeptical climatologist could sign a petition.

If only a small portion of relevant scientists contribute to the IPCC climate reports, how can they be said to represent a consensus? Otherwise, using the list of their contributors seems like a reasonable estimation tool.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

my main reason for believing that the consensus is good enough are the statements by numerous scientific organizations (which I mentioned in an earlier post).

By what mechanism do these scientific organizations establish and approve these statements? Is it through scientific inquiry and testing, or is it through a democratic or political process? This is not rhetorical, I honestly don't know and it seems important.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Sure one can by choosing the parameters appropriately produce sensitivities of 10 K and higher for doubling of CO2. But isn't that a moot point since the sensitivities I've heard predicted as most likely are not in the high end and one does not need the highest values to justify action anyway.

Are the sensitivities you've heard promoted at the low end, midrange, or higher areas of that open-top distribution? If the commonly cited temperatures are not at the low end of the distribution, they are not dependable.

Obviously, no one is estimating where the distribution graph tapers off and citing that minimum temperature change. If mistakes are being made, they are overwhelmingly likely to be made in the other direction.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

When the climatologists use computer models they run several simulations (though not as many as the guys at climateprediction.net, of course) slightly varying the used parameters to get a range of sensitivities. Are you suggesting a deliberate falsification of data?

Some deliberate falsification of data probably occurs, but that's not what I meant. Blatant falsification of data would be quickly condemned to obscurity, but so would undramatic data. The studies for which all runs are above the minimum ranges are the ones that get headlines and influence politics. If the IPCC is biased towards data that helps them influence governments, as has been suggested by insiders, they may be more willing to listen to the biased data.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Psudo wrote:

It's circumstantial evidence of bias in the data, sure, but it's sufficient for an investigation before we start legislating.

No, that in itself isn't evidence of bias in the data.

Evidence of the possibility of and motive for bias in the data, then. Not proof enough for a conviction, but evidence enough for many to want an investigation.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Calbeck wrote:

Well, more and more scientists are now concluding that even if humanity as a whole goes to zero emissions tomorrow, there is an unavoidable catastrophe coming.

I've not heard that grim predictions. Where are you getting this?

The most dramaticly grim predictions I've heard of have come from medical Ph.D. and futurist James Lovelock. He says, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable". (Wikipedia does a rather lousy job of describing his views. He believes that a large proportion of the deaths will be the result of global war in response to mass migrations in response to environmental change rather than from environmental change directly, yet Wikipedia calls his clarification a partial retreat.)

This a highly partisan source, but it lists a few other radical climate claims: *link*

[CanadianJeff]

"The most dramaticly grim predictions I've heard of have come from medical Ph.D. and futurist James Lovelock. He says, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable". (Wikipedia does a rather lousy job of describing his views. He believes that a large proportion of the deaths will be the result of global war in response to mass migrations in response to environmental change rather than from environmental change directly, yet Wikipedia calls his clarification a partial retreat"

What part of medical school allows one to become a fortune teller.

Seriously I have heard a saying I think may be relevant to these predictions.

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true."

Wizards First rule by Terry Goodkind. It's a fantasy series that does now and then bring up some interesting theory.

Point in case doomsday theories of war and billions of deaths are hardly a new thing. Every religion has one; fear that the world will end.

Which makes me question if Global warming is so much a science anymore as a religion.

[Psudo]

I think the whole field of futurism is patently ridiculous. None the less, that is the most apocalyptic prediction I've heard. You'll notice that I haven't been debating against James Lovelock, I only mentioned him in response to a question.

I agree that those that believe in his kind of apocalyptic global disaster predictions do resemble a doomsday religion more than a scientific investigation.

[Alfred909]

You don't believe that we are all slowly turning into a giant computer?

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

No downward trend in cosmic rays or clouds correlates with a persistent upward trend in global temperature. This suggests that cosmic rays' and clouds may be driving global temperature; that is, having more of an impact on global temperature than human carbon emissions. The size of the forcings agrees. As such, the warming trend should end naturally when cosmic rays' influence cycles naturally.

I don't understand what you are saying here. If you look at the graphs (ranging from 1980 to 1995) of cosmic rays and clouds in that Svensmark's pdf you notice that there's at least one maximum and two minima there and there'd probably be more if the graph continued after 1995. So if the warming trend were really caused by cosmic rays, then the trend should have already reversed more than once. It would seem to me that while a persistent upward trend in temperature could perhaps be explained by persistent downward trend in cosmic rays but by just fluctuation. Your first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.

Psudo wrote:

If only a small portion of relevant scientists contribute to the IPCC climate reports, how can they be said to represent a consensus? Otherwise, using the list of their contributors seems like a reasonable estimation tool.

The IPCC reports aren't a poll. It would be unworkable to try to enlist every climatologist in the world. I don't know how many climatologists there are in the world, but I'm fairly sure that the number is much higher than 2400.

Psudo wrote:

By what mechanism do these scientific organizations establish and approve these statements? Is it through scientific inquiry and testing, or is it through a democratic or political process? This is not rhetorical, I honestly don't know and it seems important.

Unfortunately, I don't know either.

Psudo wrote:

Are the sensitivities you've heard promoted at the low end, midrange, or higher areas of that open-top distribution? If the commonly cited temperatures are not at the low end of the distribution, they are not dependable.

Obviously, no one is estimating where the distribution graph tapers off and citing that minimum temperature change. If mistakes are being made, they are overwhelmingly likely to be made in the other direction.

According to IPCC the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely between 2°C and 4.5°C, which agrees quite well with the climateprediction.net results. One does not need the highest possible sensitivities to justify emission cuts.

Psudo wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Psudo wrote:

It's circumstantial evidence of bias in the data, sure, but it's sufficient for an investigation before we start legislating.

No, that in itself isn't evidence of bias in the data.

Evidence of the possibility of and motive for bias in the data, then. Not proof enough for a conviction, but evidence enough for many to want an investigation.

But not enough to delay any emission cuts IMHO. It seems that the climate sensitivity cannot be very much lower than 2°C.

Psudo wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Calbeck wrote:

Well, more and more scientists are now concluding that even if humanity as a whole goes to zero emissions tomorrow, there is an unavoidable catastrophe coming.

I've not heard that grim predictions. Where are you getting this?

The most dramaticly grim predictions I've heard of have come from medical Ph.D. and futurist James Lovelock. He says, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable".

With grimness I wasn't referring to over the top predictions in consequences but rather to the Calbeck's view that even total elimination of emissions would not help.


Sorry for taking so long to respond.