BBD, what should I "admit"? You say that aerosols are not CCNs. That is not true. Why you don't answer my question? I asked and asked and...

I can go into by garden every day of the year and meticulously record temperature measurements. I could then draw a nice graph and think up reasons for the temperatures displayed.

Basically I have proved nothing other than my wishful thinking in trying to find a cause for my nicely displayed data.

It could be cause A, or cause B, perhaps cause C ( they all seem valid ), or neither.

Perhaps I could tweak the data just a little bit to fit the curve to my favourite theory.

Whether it be HadCRAP 1 or 4 makes absolutely no difference - these are just simple noisy (tweaked) temperature measurements, with glaring errors enough to make any qualified engineer weep with exasperation.

They are a pastime for geeks and nerds to witter on about endlessly.

They PROVE NOTHING!

shub

The climate system is exceptionally stable at long timescales. Sorry.

Rubbish!!

I really don't think that helps, BBD. If you don't agree maybe you could say why.

Umm, let me see... the PETM perhaps? Eocene-Oligocene transition (Oi-1)? Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum? Mid-Pliocene Thermal Optimum? Not to mention the ~12C *fall* in GAT from 50Ma - present...

What causes you to say otherwise?

The ~ 5C swings between glacials and interglacials and the vigorous instability (notably interstadials) of glacial climates ...

The ~ 5C swings between glacials and interglacials and the vigorous instability (notably interstadials) of glacial climates ...
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM | BBD

On short timescales, are the 10-20 degree swings (maybe 'catastrophically' 50C in sub-tropical deserts) between day and night stable or unstable weather/climate?

matthu

can we presume you are aware that most of the Be10 is the result of higher altitude interactions by incoming cosmic ray-particles of moderate energy while it is the higher energy muons that penetrate the lower atmosphere that are potentially associated with climate change?

And that even if the magnetic field of the earth were to disappear completely the incidence of high energy muons would be reckoned to vary by only about 3%?

Why *wouldn't* the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field during the Laschamp excursion *increase* the flux of high energy muons to the lower atmosphere? I'm puzzled.

And the climatologically significant effect of the *total* GCR flux increase during the Lashcamp excursion was... nowt.

And evidence for a climatological effect from a change in muon flux to the lower atmosphere in modern observations is ... ?

Nowt.

Or come to think of it according to Wikipedia the polar bear capital Churchill in Canada seems to have a mean temperature of 12C in summer and -27C in winter. Is that nearly 40C mean swing in 6 months a sign of instability? Average high to low swing here is approaching 50C..

shub

I am looking at the same graphs. The exceptional stability of the climate system is amply evident.

Really? I think we have been playfully hacked.

He's successfully hijacked the thread again, yet I don't want him to go away, at least not until he's explained to me why the first law of thermodynamics is the damping factor on positive feedbacks, which it isn't. But please remember we have our own Muller who pretended to be a sceptic but claimed that he'd been persuaded by the science here.

Disappointed that Richard Betts is bored with us, but would be relieved if BBD was.

All Svensmark and fans have to do is show some evidence that there is a significant climate-GCR link.

Since the subtext here is that this is is part of the 'best evidence' that CO2 is *not* the main driver of modern warming, you need to put something on the table.

Off you go...

BBD - you ask

Why *wouldn't* the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field during the Laschamp excursion *increase* the flux of high energy muons to the lower atmosphere? I'm puzzled.

Don't worry - you made the same mistake as Wolfendale and Sloan so you are in good company. Perhaps this will help - and this paragraph in particular

We have come to the nub of the misconception, where the critics haven’t grasped an elementary point about Svensmark’s physics. For ten years he has said the clouds most affected by cosmic rays are low clouds. So the cosmic rays that matter are charged particles (mainly muons, heavy electrons) that penetrate low into the atmosphere. They’re generated mostly by very energetic protons from the Galaxy on which the Earth’s magnetic field has little influence. Hence the much reduced slope of the red curve, compared with Sloan & Wolfendale’s NM slope.
Aug 1, 2012 at 11:26 PM | matthu>>>>>

You're wasting your time.

He'll claim black is white in order to prove that it's CO2 wot dunnit!

Er...

All Svensmark and fans have to do is show some evidence that there is a significant climate-GCR link.

You didn't.

"All Svensmark and fans have to do is show some evidence that there is a significant climate-GCR link."

I'm a Svensmark fan because I think the theory is cool. It doesn't make it right of course but there is loads of evidence suggesting the sun has an effect on climate. How about the Maunder Minimum coinciding with a cold period on the Earth. Also at least Svensmark is conducting experiments to test his theory

I come from a Geological, Oceanographic and Meteorological background and the GCR theory fits in very well on a geological tiime scale. Purely my opinion here but I think GCR's (or some other solar effect, with other plausible sounding theories around.) and ocean induced natural variability can account for the changes we've seen.

I also like the Miskolczi theory as it seems to fit in very well with the overall extremely stable climate wth seen in Earth History (500+ million years of continual abundant animal like during the Phanerozoic shows it is at least stable enough for animals to thrive.) Also how can CO2 be so dominant when H20 dwarfs it in effect and there is a unlimited amount of water around for GHG purposes if you want to warm your greenhouse up more.

Also BBD I linked in another thread to a random paper showing cloudiness dropping in the late 20th century. I asked whether GCR's (or other solar) or CO2 explained the drop better, but didn't see an answer. Also there is again other evidence for cloudiness dropping last century (Earthshine?) which doesn't fit with the CO2 theory at all does it?

Aug 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM | Mike Jackson

I don't understand the no evidence line. I guess if you don't count any evidence you don't like it might be true. Just because a theory doesn't explain 100% of all the data doesn't make the physical hypothesis incorrect but may point out there are other factors in play which I'm sure everyone would think was true anyway.