The Denial Industry

[Guest Viking141]

No, I did get the point you were making, but I chose to ignore it: WIB can defend himself, should be choose to. I wanted to get away from the personal and back to the general point, which I will now.

There is an important, if subtle, distinction to be made here, between science and society/law. In a legal case, 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is a decision a jury can make, even when the defence presents evidence, because it can choose not to accept the truth of the evidence as presented; in other words, it decides whether a statement or claim is or is not 'evidence'.

(I'm no lawyer; I think that is right). In science, however, beyond all reasonable doubt is, almost by definition, not manageable; a hypothesis must be falsifiable, therefore, until such time as all (reasonable) efforts to falsify it have failed, it is generally accepted as the best available hypothesis. As time passes, even the most rigorous scientific proofs are revised in the light of new knowledge and discovery, even if they are still correct in principle (consider Newton, for example). So in science, a decision needs to be made when a hypothesis has been sufficiently tested to render it reasonable to accept. I believe this is now the case for AGW. Is it then 'beyond all reasonable doubt'? Not in the strict sense, because 'reasonable doubt' is of the essence of scientific progress. Is it 'sufficiently tested' to accept as a sound hypothesis? Again, I would say yes.

My conclusion, then, is that what you want of AGW is more than it is able to give you; on these terms, you may never be sufficiently convinced as to change your mind (or find the case 'proven'). If, however, you are willing to accept the lesser (but eminently reasonable) alternative, then perhaps...

:)P

As it stands at the moment I dont accept that the idea that the only show in town is Anthropogenic Global Warming. I have, however, been somewhat more convinced by the arguments for solar variation having a more significant impact on our climate than is hiterto believed. Whats even more interesting is that evidence or otherwise of this hypothesis will be there for all to see in the not too distant future with the approach of the Gleissberg Minima. If this event does not have the impact on the current warming phase that it should do if it is true that solar variation plays a major role in our climate then fine, I will be happy to concede that this current phase of warming is far more potent than I had initially believed and revise my opinions accordingly.

As I have said before I am not a "GW sceptic" in the sense that I do not believe that GW is happening, I do. What I dont believe is that AGW is as big a factor as some believe and that terrible things will follow. This planet has had warming phases before and as sure as night has followed day what has followed is a cooling phase, not further warming. I appreciate the point that the difference this time around is the human influence what I disagree with is that the human influence is more powerful than either natural climactic cycles or external forcings such as solar variation. Convincing me that us mere humans are capable of overcoming the power of such phenomenal forces is the key to convincing me as to the veracity of your arguments.

P3 you have provided a wealth of research material for all of us on here which has proved to be extremely interesting and invaluable and for that you deserve great credit. However, as far as I am concerned what you have shown so far is:

a). GW is a fact

b.) We humans are influencing GW in a way not seen before

c). AGW is ONE possible factor in such warming but not the only one and other factors such as solar variation should not be discounted.

What you (or rather the evidence you have provided) has not yet established (and I use yet deliberately because as I have said I am open to persuasion) is

1) The current human influence is the most powerful and overriding influence which cannot be overcome by either natural cyclical events, external forcings (such as solar variation) or indeed a planetary forcing such as a major volcanic eruption - sending our climate in a totally different direction to that currently predicted.

2) There are no other possible outcomes to the current warming phase than more warming

What I particularly have a problem with is the argument that:

If x does not believe P then Q

therefore P must be true

where x = those who do not believe P; P=AGW and Q=a terrible future for us all

This is, as I have stated before, a logical fallacy where Q does not necessarily prove the truth of P - argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force) i.e. this must be right because if you dont believe it unpleasant things will happen in the future. We may indeed be in for a terrible future, that does not prove the truth of AGW however.

I would also like to add that I am fully aware of my own shortcomings with regard to the science of this debate. What I would say is that my opinions on this are not set in stone. I remain to be convinced. What I will not be convinced by, however, is folk who insist "x" is true because thats what they believe and dare you to say otherwise.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Viking141

[parmenides3]

What you (or rather the evidence you have provided) has not yet established (and I use yet deliberately because as I have said I am open to persuasion) is

1) The current human influence is the most powerful and overriding influence which cannot be overcome by either natural cyclical events, external forcings (such as solar variation) or indeed a planetary forcing such as a major volcanic eruption - sending our climate in a totally different direction to that currently predicted.

2) There are no other possible outcomes to the current warming phase than more warming

Okay. A bit back to front, but I hope you don't mind. The sort of volcanic eruption that would shift the entire climate (rather than change it for a couple of years) is certainly possible; Yellowstone, Taupo, etc. But these events come around incredibly rarely. It is always possible and never predictable that another huge volcano could happen but it is, in the next 100 years, no more likely than it has been for the last 72,000. We can expect some volcanic activity, and it is a forcing that the models account for, but we can't, by definition, include it in a projection for any specific time in the future. The other point I would make is that a Taupo-sized eruption would be so devastating that GW would become irrelevant instantly, as the chances are that no more than a few thousand humans survived the last one. But, because it is absolutely unpredictable, we can only work on the probability of it occurring and the probability is low.

Solar forcing, including all the various theories about sunspots, solar rays, cosmic ray flux, Maunder minimum and Gliessberg minimum, etc. has been thoroughly examined, tested, analysed and studied for years now. There are still some uncertainties to be resolved in this area, as proper measurement has only been possible for a few years, but (a big but), none of the research done has shown a solar forcing, (over and above the normal range of solar irradiance) at any time in the record, and through the proxy record, of greater than, at most, 0.5 W/M2 ( the generally accepted figure is 0.3), compared to a current CO2 forcing estimated at 1.4 W/M2. The Sun has the greatest overall influence, but CO2 has caused the greatest variance; at least twice, probably three times as much. I can point you to hundreds of studies of Solar influence, and they all come to the same overall conclusion. The one which didn't, by Baliunas and Soon, was shown to be faulty by other scientists, and shown to contain serious errors. Later, it was suggested that they had tried to get the hypothesis to fit the facts because they were being funded by 'vested interests', but it doesn't matter who pays, if the sums don't add up. And, when it come to the Sun as the main forcing of current Global Warming, the numbers do not add up.

Natural cyclical events is much harder to be certain about. These, too, have been studied for some years, but it is clear that, as we learn more about them, we also learn how much there is that we don't yet understand. All I can tell you on this one is that the reading I have done which tests the THC/MOC/cyclical variation ideas has yet to show that the current GW can be fit easilt into any of the historical patterns. That the natural cycle of things will assert itself, given a sufficient push, is a reasonable assumption to make, but then we need to ask how much will it take? how long will it take? etc. etc. I'll come onto these another time, as I will with number 2. This post is too long already.

:)P

Edited October 7, 2006 by parmenides3

[Guest Viking141]

Hi all, thought you might be interested in this.

This is "hot off the press" if you like!

A newly released paper from the Danish National Space Centre, written by Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff & Ulrik Uggerhoj; have experimental evidence to support a link between cosmic rays and the Earths climate.

Director of the DNSC Eigil Friis-Christensen said: "Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research."

Sciencebits article

DNSC press release

Abstract of paper published on Royal Society website

The second link is to where it is published on the website of the Royal Society. There is a brief abstract but you need to subscribe to get the full document. Any subscribers out there? P3? Or anyone know of where else we can view the contents of this paper?

Edited October 7, 2006 by Viking141

[parmenides3]

Hi all, thought you might be interested in this.

This is "hot off the press" if you like!

A newly released paper from the Danish National Space Centre, written by Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff & Ulrik Uggerhoj; have experimental evidence to support a link between cosmic rays and the Earths climate.

Director of the DNSC Eigil Friis-Christensen said: "Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research."

Sciencebits article

DNSC press release

Abstract of paper published on Royal Society website

The second link is to where it is published on the website of the Royal Society. There is a brief abstract but you need to subscribe to get the full document. Any subscribers out there? P3? Or anyone know of where else we can view the contents of this paper?

Can't get the links to work, Vikes!

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

Can't get the links to work, Vikes!

:)P

Hmmm. The Sciencebits one works you just have to scroll down the page a bit and there is also a link within that article to the DNSC. I'll see if I can find the Royal Society link.

For additional info, the author of the Sciencebits article, Nir Shaviv, is Senior Lecturer at the Racah Inst of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

OK try this for the Royal Society:

Royal Society

Move your mouse over "journals" and click on "Proc. R. Soc. A" and click on the link for "FirstCite Early Online Publishing" you are looking for the 4th research article dated 3rd October

Edited October 7, 2006 by Viking141

[parmenides3]

Hmmm. The Sciencebits one works you just have to scroll down the page a bit and there is also a link within that article to the DNSC. I'll see if I can find the Royal Society link.

For additional info, the author of the Sciencebits article, Nir Shaviv, is Senior Lecturer at the Racah Inst of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

OK try this for the Royal Society:

Royal Society

Move your mouse over "journals" and click on "Proc. R. Soc. A" and click on the link for "FirstCite Early Online Publishing" you are looking for the 4th research article dated 3rd October

This is an excellent find, Viking, well done. The blog is a little bit overenthusiastic about the implications of the paper and is arguably making claims about what its importance is which cannot be justified by the paper itself - or at least, the discussions of it you also present, so I'll talk about the DNSC press release and the abstract.

The press release provides the most information about the contents of the paper. To put it into context, this is the result of years of research and theory, and, in the past controversy. Svensmark and Friis-Christiansen are well-known and respected scientists. I cannot vouch for its scientific rigour unless I read the paper itself, so I will accept at face value that the findings are correct and peer-reviewed.

So, what does it say? From what I can gather, it shows a connection between the formation of cloud-forming aerosols and 'cosmic rays' (the quotes do not imply doubt, just that I don't know what they are without reading.... etc). This is undoubtedly a very important discovery in terms of the ways in which the atmosphere could be affected by extrasolar forcings which have been considered, but never proven, perhaps until now.

The press release also says that this shows that there may be a connection between this interaction and climate change. It also offers new insight into the ways in which cloud cover could form in areas where there are few other particulates (dust which helps form cloud droplets). Finally, it suggest that this discovery should contribute to an understanding of the climate, climate change, and, possibly, Global Warming.

That the team has found a connection between cosmic ray flux and cloud formation is remarkable, that is for sure.

That the team believes this to be important to an understanding of the climate and CC is also clear.

What is not so clear is how much difference this flux makes to the atmosphere; is it a lot, or a little, compared to other forcings? Is the effect global or, as the qualification implies, regionalised? Finally, providing a link between cosmic ray flux and cloud formation is one thing; showing that it makes enough difference to affect the climate system powerfully enough to cause warming, or even to increase precipitation rates, is another. And they do not make this claim; they only suggest that such a link is possible.

I am sure this area will be more thoroughly researched as a result of this paper, assuming it to be accepted, but once again, without more information, it is hard to see that this is proof of an alternative to current GW theory, except in principle.

The paper will be discussed on the open blogs, I am sure, and I'll let you know what the scientists are saying about it.

You have done well to show that there are alternative, new ideas which could have an impact on GW theory. Just so long as everyone understands that the paper doesn't prove (or even claim to) that cosmic rays are the cause of Global Warming.

You may now be a candidate for the AHS; ggod stuff.

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

Praise indeed from the master of Article Hounds!

I absolutely realise that this is just the start down a long road which will require much more investigation, but the mere fact that they have indeed found a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation and climate when up until now it has only been speculation, which has often been doubted, is indeed remarkable. And whats more its not theoretical but experimental evidence!

What I would like to see is this research being expanded upon to see if there is a major link between solar output, cosmic rays and climate change. The key for me is this (from the DNSC press release)

"Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work."

We could, therefore, as I have previously suggested, be in for some interesting times given the approach of the Gleissberg minima, which means reduced solar output, increased influx of cosmic rays leading to increased low clouds having a major cooling effect. What excites me is we could (I emphasise could) see the physical effects of such processes in our lifetimes.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Viking141

[parmenides3]

Praise indeed from the master of Article Hounds!

I absolutely realise that this is just the start down a long road which will require much more investigation, but the mere fact that they have indeed found a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation and climate when up until now it has only been speculation, which has often been doubted, is indeed remarkable. And whats more its not theoretical but experimental evidence!

What I would like to see is this research being expanded upon to see if there is a major link between solar output, cosmic rays and climate change. The key for me is this (from the DNSC press release)

"Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work."

We could, therefore, as I have previously suggested, be in for some interesting times given the approach of the Gleissberg minima, which means reduced solar output, increased influx of cosmic rays leading to increased low clouds having a major cooling effect. What excites me is we could (I emphasise could) see the physical effects of such processes in our lifetimes.

There is already quite a lot of research being done, Viking. There is a comment on some of it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...climate-driver/

and a link to a newish abstract here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/...ature05072.html

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

There is already quite a lot of research being done, Viking. There is a comment on some of it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...climate-driver/

and a link to a newish abstract here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/...ature05072.html

:)P

Tks P3. Ive already looked up Veizer. Indeed he also did a paper with Nir Shavit (the blogger at Sciencebits we were talking about earlier) discussing the possibility of a link between cosmic rays, the earths passage through the galactic spiral arm and ice age events in 2005 which I think was published in the Journal of Geophys. (I'll see if I can find the link).

From what I have read on RealClimate (admittedly not a huge amount) I find them biased towards the "official line" on GW/Climate Change and they seem to delight in giving a good kicking to alternative theories. Perhaps this new evidence from the DNSC will give them food for thought. I would be most interested to hear what you pick up on the scientific blogs.

Edited October 8, 2006 by Viking141

[parmenides3]

Tks P3. Ive already looked up Veizer. Indeed he also did a paper with Nir Shavit (the blogger at Sciencebits we were talking about earlier) discussing the possibility of a link between cosmic rays, the earths passage through the galactic spiral arm and ice age events in 2005 which I think was published in the Journal of Geophys. (I'll see if I can find the link).

From what I have read on RealClimate (admittedly not a huge amount) I find them biased towards the "official line" on GW/Climate Change and they seem to delight in giving a good kicking to alternative theories. Perhaps this new evidence from the DNSC will give them food for thought. I would be most interested to hear what you pick up on the scientific blogs.

This argument in the scientific community about the role of GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays) in the climate has been running for many years now. Svensmark, Friis-Christiansen & Marsh are amongst the principal champions of the theory. Nir Shaviv appears to be another member of this 'group' of scientists who are challenging current GW theory with this alternative hypothesis.

You are right that RealClimate is a blog which actively supports the 'main line' in climate theory. They also tend to reject alternative theories, but not, generally, without reason. Their critique of Veizer, for example, contains several important points which would need to be addressed before his paper could be accepted at face value.

That they don't like Svensmark et. al. is also evident. (Comments like 'shoody science' and 'untested hypotheses' give a hint...) This stems back to a 'problem' with an important paper produced some years ago, which made the above proposition. Analysis of the paper by independent scientists indicated that some of the processes involved in producing the results were, shall we say, suspect. The paper was discredited (on scientific grounds) and its findings rejected.

That does not mean that there is no substance to the theory. What seems to be the most respected recent paper on the subject is Carslaw et. al. (2002) [link below]. The biggest problem with the theory, as I understand it (imperfectly), is that, as it stands, it doesn't adequately show the mechanism which links GCR with changes in the temperature record.

So what does the 'new' finding show? It shows that, under experimental conditions, it is possible to create nucleation by ion bombardment. This would contribute to the theories acceptability, but is still a long way from providing the link between cosmic rays and GW. I think you'll enjoy the Carslaw paper, which is on the same subject, but less 'controversial'.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732

There is also an update by Krsitjansen & Kristensen which is worth reading:

:)P

cosmicrayupdatekrtistiansen.pdf

[parmenides3]

Edit: can't find the full Carslaw document; this is the full KKK document, summarised above:

:)P

kkk_asr_2004.pdf

[parmenides3]

There's a brief comment on the press release on Stoat: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

The blogger is William Connolley, a climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey.

It sounds as if his opinion is not dissimilar to mine (?)

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

There's a brief comment on the press release on Stoat: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

The blogger is William Connolley, a climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey.

It sounds as if his opinion is not dissimilar to mine (?)

:)P

Hmm. The phrase "he would say that wouldn't he" springs to mind!!

:lol:

Tks P3 I shall peruse the other links.

[parmenides3]

Hmm. The phrase "he would say that wouldn't he" springs to mind!!

Tks P3 I shall peruse the other links.

Why? Do you think he is biased in some way?

:lol: :)P

[Guest Viking141]

Why? Do you think he is biased in some way?

:huh: :)P

Just his tone. Seems to me we live in a world where if something becomes "accepted wisdom" then anyone or anything who goes against that is immediately torn to shreds, shouted down etc etc. This seems to have permeated science as well particularly with regard to GW. I was completely turned off by the attitude and tone on RealClimate and wont be visiting that site again.

[parmenides3]

Just his tone. Seems to me we live in a world where if something becomes "accepted wisdom" then anyone or anything who goes against that is immediately torn to shreds, shouted down etc etc. This seems to have permeated science as well particularly with regard to GW. I was completely turned off by the attitude and tone on RealClimate and wont be visiting that site again.

That is a disappointment, as there are often very interesting discussions on the blog, especially the comments which follow the articles, which often disagree with the writers. As for the tone; well, it seems to be pretty much standard for the blogs on climate. At least it avoids some of the more blatant personal attacks (ad homs) and simple 'trashing' of other peoples' work. It is not a 'balanced' blog, but it does not pretend to be, but generally I have found the commentaries try to look at the science, fist and foremost.

For an alternative view, you might prefer Climate Science, Prof. Pielke's 'maverick' site, or Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre's blog. I quite enjoy the tone in Rabett Run, as well as Stoat. Head in a cloud is a good blog, as is Deltoid, which has a broader science base.

I disagree with you that Connolley is 'shouting down' another theory; he is expressing his opinion of it but, as I said, the group working on this are well-known in climate science, and clearly some scientists are less tolerant of them than others. Perhaps he is dismissive because he knows his business?

It has often been suggested that theories which don't support the current GW/CO2 hypothesis are 'dissed', or discredited, regardless of their validity, simply because they are 'different'. I cannot accept this. If somebody came up with a better hypothesis for the current climate warming than already exists, they'd probably be given a Nobel Prize, or something. The number of references that even an amateur like me can find on almost any subject brought up on the GW threads should indicate to you that every theory is carefully considered, and research often goes on in several places at once.

The other thing you should note is that the paper we were talking about makes no claim to offer an alternative hypothesis for GW; that was a suggestion made in the press release and in Shaviv's blog. There is no reason for it to be ostracised on the grounds that it does not conform to standard knowledge, because it does not, directly, make a challenge to the knowledge.

I hope you find a blog that you enjoy more. I do read Realclimate, not because I accept their 'line', but because they are alert to current research, and many of the posters are climate scientists themselves, and highly knowledgeable about the physics as well as other aspects of the science. For me, it is a useful source of information on the subject.

Ho, hum.

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

That is a disappointment, as there are often very interesting discussions on the blog, especially the comments which follow the articles, which often disagree with the writers. As for the tone; well, it seems to be pretty much standard for the blogs on climate. At least it avoids some of the more blatant personal attacks (ad homs) and simple 'trashing' of other peoples' work. It is not a 'balanced' blog, but it does not pretend to be, but generally I have found the commentaries try to look at the science, fist and foremost.

For an alternative view, you might prefer Climate Science, Prof. Pielke's 'maverick' site, or Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre's blog. I quite enjoy the tone in Rabett Run, as well as Stoat. Head in a cloud is a good blog, as is Deltoid, which has a broader science base.

I disagree with you that Connolley is 'shouting down' another theory; he is expressing his opinion of it but, as I said, the group working on this are well-known in climate science, and clearly some scientists are less tolerant of them than others. Perhaps he is dismissive because he knows his business?

It has often been suggested that theories which don't support the current GW/CO2 hypothesis are 'dissed', or discredited, regardless of their validity, simply because they are 'different'. I cannot accept this. If somebody came up with a better hypothesis for the current climate warming than already exists, they'd probably be given a Nobel Prize, or something. The number of references that even an amateur like me can find on almost any subject brought up on the GW threads should indicate to you that every theory is carefully considered, and research often goes on in several places at once.

The other thing you should note is that the paper we were talking about makes no claim to offer an alternative hypothesis for GW; that was a suggestion made in the press release and in Shaviv's blog. There is no reason for it to be ostracised on the grounds that it does not conform to standard knowledge, because it does not, directly, make a challenge to the knowledge.

I hope you find a blog that you enjoy more. I do read Realclimate, not because I accept their 'line', but because they are alert to current research, and many of the posters are climate scientists themselves, and highly knowledgeable about the physics as well as other aspects of the science. For me, it is a useful source of information on the subject.

Ho, hum.

:)P

Okey Cokey, I shall have a look at some of the blogs you suggested.Tks.