BBD

"First, have you yet bothered to find out about the 400ky periodicity in the Earth's orbital eccentricity? This long-term cycle in Earth orbital dynamics is the reason why the Holocene interglacial will indeed be many times longer than any since MIS 11 (420 - 360kya)"

My understanding is that for periods of hundreds of millions of years the earth had teperatures higher than today by 15/20 degrees with CO2 higher by several factors of 10 than today but still the earth fell into ice age.

What happened to the 400k cycles at this time? Did they go on a well earned holiday?

matthu

You were keen to misrepresent Peter A. Stott upthread, so here's a little something to set the record straight. Far from endorsing your 'uncertainty' fudge, he does the exact opposite in his latest paper (emphasis added):

Sensitivity of the attribution of near surface temperature warming to the choice of observational dataset – Jones & Stott (2011)

A number of studies have demonstrated that much of the recent warming in global near surface temperatures can be attributed to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. While this conclusion has been shown to be robust in analyses using a variety of climate models there have not been equivalent studies using different available observational datasets. Here we repeat the analyses as reported previously using an updated observational dataset and other independently processed datasets of near surface temperatures. We conclude that the choice of observational dataset has little impact on the attribution of greenhouse gas warming and other anthropogenic cooling contributions to observed warming on a global scale over the 20th century, however this robust conclusion may not hold for other periods or for smaller sub-regions. Our results show that the dominant contributor to global warming over the last 50 years of the 20th century is that due to greenhouse gases.

Jones, G. S. and P. A. Stott (2011), Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21702, doi:10.1029/2011GL049324.

I am not saying that different scientists don't come to different views. In fact, I am saying the exact opposite ie.e that different scieitsts do come to different views. Hence the uncertainty.

Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

None of the above quotes actually does much to reduce my level of uncertainty.

And I don't think Peter Scott's paper that you quoted (good find by the way) quite refute's this part of his previous statement, does it?

Uncertainty in the fraction of recent warming attributable to natural versus anthropogenic influences, together with uncertainty in future natural forcing, remain important caveats.

I mean, in the paper you quoted he specifically adds the following rider

"however this robust conclusion may not hold for other periods or for smaller sub-regions"

matthu

For example, can you reliably quantify e.g. the extent of warming/cooling caused by land use? No? then there is uncertainty here.

For example, can you reliably quantify e.g. the extent of warming/cooling caused by cosmic rays? No? then there is uncertainty here.

You and your fixation on 'uncertainty'. Standard pseudo-sceptic fare, of course, but deeply tiresome all the same.

Here is a quantification of the over-statement of the effects of LUC on climate by RP Sr. I've already linked to it twice on this thread, but I suppose if I keep on, and on, and on, you might read it eventually.

There are numerous studies that show that the effects of cosmic rays on climate are negligable. For example, Sloan & Wolfendale (2011) [all emphasis added]:

A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.

And Erlykin et al. (2011)

A survey is made of the evidence for and against the hypothesis that cosmic rays influence cloud cover. The analysis is made principally for the troposphere. It is concluded that for the troposphere there is only a very small overall value for the fraction of cloud attributable to cosmic rays (CR); if there is linearity between CR change and cloud change, the value is probably ~1% for clouds below ~6.5km, but less overall. The apparently higher value for low cloud is an artifact. The contribution of CR to ’climate change’ is quite negligible.

And Pierce & Adams (2009):

In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.

Sorry - Peter Stott not Scott.

Bishop Hill

Commenter matthu has once again called me a racist:

Finally, I think you will find that reiteration of a racist view does not make it more acceptable.

Nov 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I have striven to avoid this, but I am now forced to request that you moderate.

Bishop Hill

I suggest no intervention in terms of moderation in this discussion however, if you do decide to moderate please take into account this comment by BBD yesterday on one of my posts:

"Second, what makes you think I want to answer more of your questions given your behaviour? Why the f-ck should I waste my time?

Allow me to cordially invite you to get stuffed."

BBD

"First, have you yet bothered to find out about the 400ky periodicity in the Earth's orbital eccentricity? This long-term cycle in Earth orbital dynamics is the reason why the Holocene interglacial will indeed be many times longer than any since MIS 11 (420 - 360kya"

So in fact you ARE now stating that temperatures will stay warm because of the Milankovich cycles and not simply CO2.

Would you like to make your mind up exactly what you think and get back to me after that most stressful of tasks has been completed?

You highlight three interesting papers (which you have highlighted before) and they are interesting additions to the debate.

However, I am not persuaded by Pierce and Adams who rely on computer modelling and given the uncertain level of understanding in the physical processes involved, how much certainty do we place on the output of a computer model? Judging by the success of the climate models, not too much.

The Physics Dept at Durham seem intent on finding an upper bound on the relationship between Cosmic rays intensity and temperature. The problem is that the have previously demonstrated that they haven't properly understood the mechanisms involved firstly by using data averaged over too long a time to detect short period changes and secondly using cosmic ray counts when muon counts would have been more relevant. These papers even admit to a lot of uncertainty and make a lot of presumptions that may not be true, so although I won't try to pretend these papers are fatally flawed, neither would I presume that they aren't.

They simply highlight the fact that the jury is still out.

BDD - your appeal to BH is pathetic.

I think if you bother to go through all of my posts and all of your posts you will find that your use of objectionable language and unwarranted slurs far exceeds any on this thread. By comparison, my posts have been highly restrained and moderate.

Please do a check if you want to dispute this.

Matthu

From memory; Svesmark's point was that low cloud had a greater effect on warming than cloud at higher levels and that cosmic rays increased the amount of low level cloud.
Last time I checked a report on the CERN experiment which aimed to validate his claims, things were looking good for his hypothesis.

By the way, my fixation on uncertainty is because most of the results rely on statistical analysis of data, or has that point eluded you? And the review by Fang et al. was a review of the level of uncertainty in the science, the point being that if the level of uncertainty is high, then a narrow consensus is lacking.

Quite logical really.

BBD
You asked for a list of the personal attacks; you got a list of the personal attacks.
You didn't challenge their scientific abilities. Every one of the instances I quoted is an attack on an individual.
Somewhere down the line you may learn (with any luck though none of us here is holding his breath) that it is quite OK to take a different view from you about where the science leads. Not agreeing with BBD and his heroes in all respects does not make any of the people mentioned bad people or bad scientists. In fact, as far as I know, every one of them is a better — or at least more highly-qualified scientist — than you are.
Indeed most, if not all of them, have more qualifications, experience, and published work than a certain wet-behind-the-ears junior researcher who was set up to put his name up-front on a failed attempt to "get rid of the MWP" before the ink was even dry on his PhD parchment. And who since then has not only considered himself God's gift to climatology but has become a self-appointed judge over what is and is not acceptable in that field.
And if you are going back to that hoary old canard about scientists who are or have been partly funded by the oil industry I suggest you might like to look at where funding for your side of the argument comes from because most of the world's energy companies are fully signed up to the CAGW meme (even those who don't actually believe a word of it) because in the current climate it's good PR.
[For the benefit of those who didn't follow BBD's somewhat offensive "notorious pocketer of oil money" link (which, of course, is not a personal attack — oh.no!) it led to sourcewatch, so all fall about laughing at that one!]
We'll not bother with the extent to which the environmental NGOs who have their own axe to grind are busy pumping money into the scarier aspects of global warming with precious little regard either for science or truth.
Now be a good gentleman and get on with discussing the science, admitting what you don't know, and trying not to treat others on this site as if they were all cretins. Disagreement does not equal stupidity. Refusal to countenance disagreement and deal with it like a grown-up comes pretty close.

Indeed, Dung.

And another problem is that Wolfendale is trying to detect a relationship between global CR count and global temperature.

Well we already know the level of uncertainty in measurement of global temperature anomalies. (Just consider how often global temperatures are adjusted even years after the event.) Regional analyses would be a lot more useful.

BDD - thanks for the link to SkS talking about RP Snr - but this did not seem to address current uncertainty about the magnitude of the effect of land use on global warming, did it?

In fact the only reference (I may be wrong here) to land use that I could readily see was in the last paragraph where it says: "although we need to address other issues like land use change" suggesting that this has yet to be addressed.

Maybe I missed the point you were trying to make, but I accept that all scientists make mistakes and subsequently make revisions. That is part of the scientific process and why scientific debate should be encouraged and not suppressed. And an obvious sign that the debate has become too politicised is when debate is actually being suppressed - and there are numerous examples of Climategate emails to show that this happening all the time.

You seem to adopt a view that once a scientist has been shown to be wrong once, he loses all credibility for all time. (Hence your reliance on sourcewatch of course.)

Bishop Hill

Commenter matthu has once again called me a racist:

Finally, I think you will find that reiteration of a racist view does not make it more acceptable.

Nov 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I have striven to avoid this, but I am now forced to request that you moderate.
Nov 24, 2011 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

For pity's sake. Stop your adolescent whingeing and learn how to communicate with adults.

What a cess pit.

What a cess pit.
Nov 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

Diddums!

The world might indulge unqualified wannabe scientists but it doesn't revolve around them.

RKS

I dont think that the problem with BBD is that he is not qualified, the problem is his personality ie he behaves like a spoilt brat.
A PHD Physicist would be well able to engage in a debate about Radiative Forcings but does Physics enable him to comment on paleo-climate reconstructions, statistical work, computer models, and the part plants and animals play in producing or absorbing so called greenhouse gases?
No single human being is "qualified" to speak about every aspect of climate change.
What is needed is an intelligent person who has a good grasp of what our current understanding is in a large number of different sciences. Having a specalised knowledge in one of those sciences is obviously a big advantage.
BBD demonstrated that he had read a great deal about climate change, however he could not accept any criticism of the conclusions he drew from his reading.

BBD demonstrated that he had read a great deal about climate change, however he could not accept any criticism of the conclusions he drew from his reading.
Nov 24, 2011 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered Commenter Dung

As you say, like many posting on this blog, he is an enthusiastic amateur in climate science, but seems to have an unfortunate problem dealing with people. He appears to fantasize that he is an authority on the complex science of climate behaviour, and wishes to impress others with his self assumed superior knowledge. No challenge to his opinions can be tolerated lest it brings him, and his ego, back to ground level. It's fairly obvious, from his frequent use of course language, that he has serious problems dealing with the cut and thrust of debate, which he sees as a personal contest which must be won in order to save face. As a scientifically literate climat science 'layman', trying to obtain a balanced view of the subject, I find his posts deliberately disruptive. His ego needs an argument, which is why he prefers to post here rather than on a more friendly alarmist blog. He wants to be taken seriously and the one thing he cannot deal with is open ridicule.

Thanks for your comments. I must get to bed soon as I have to take my wife to the hospital early tomorrow morning.

Even if I'm not posting myself, I like to keep up with topics debated. I find it all most interesting.

BBD demonstrated that he had read a great deal about climate change, however he could not accept any criticism of the conclusions he drew from his reading.
Nov 24, 2011 at 9:26 PM | Dung

He wants to be taken seriously and the one thing he cannot deal with is open ridicule.
Nov 24, 2011 at 10:22 PM | RKS

What a cess pit.
Nov 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM | BBD

It's of your own making, BDD.

matthu

Actually, you lot are the pathological contrarians with the knowledge deficit and the honesty problems.

You richly deserve each other.

"...but I think Laughlin is also suggesting that future developments in technology will resolve these problems, even if people don't yet have the answers."

Well, a bunch of chapters are taken up in explaining how sources of energy such as coal, garbage, crop and algae, would be converted to carbon-based fuels. This is after he establishes that carbon-based energy forms are the only practical forms of energy. So, I guess for our purposes these innovations don't really count as innovations.

He talks about solar for a bit, and talks about deep ocean energy (at which point it becomes too fantasy-like)

re. BBD : DNFTT

As I said, I haven't read the book yet, so I'm not in a good position to discuss it in too much detail. Having said that, from the blurb Laughlin seems confident that alternatives will fill the gap left by fossil fuels. I can also understand that for some forms of transport, carbon-based energy forms (is that not a bit too Star Trek?) are ideal. However you don't have to look far to notice that they are not the only form of energy that we could in principal utilize. I also think I understand what you mean about innovations - most if not all of the likely avenues are already known about. However, there is a big difference between knowing about a source and a usable technology based on it. So for example, any or all of the following could have a major impact in the future over and above the ideas you mentioned above: fast breeder and thorium reactors; fusion reactors; desert solar; geothermal; carbon sequestration. None of these are currently important in the energy market.