Arapiles, as the Warmista are fond of telling sceptics when they point to a decade of cooling since 1999,

"anything less than 30 years is not climate, it's weather."

You can't have it both ways.

Miguel. There are new developments in the science, but all people hear are the same old arguments. I'm trying to keep people up to date on new evidence emerging which points up important questions about the climate alarmism perpetuated by the IPCC and it's coterie of scientists.

People who are set in their ways tend to talk past each other, but the scientific approach is to remain open to new data and re-evaluate existing theoriy in the light of the implications of the new information.

Science is not merely a springboard for a point of view, or at least it shouldn't be. I am open to being convinced I'm wrong about my interpretation of the data, but that's not going to be achieved by hollering about half baked opinion polls or parading inaccurate data.

No-one is offering another interpretation of the Soon et al graph posted above, although it carries a pretty clear message.

Why is that? Why not talk about the data?

Here it is again:

OK Rog ... I'm going to go outside now and run naked in the teeming rain.

The correlation between reduced cloud cover and increased temperature is not that controversial. The question is cause and whether or not continued warming will increase or reduce cloud cover. If increased it will mitigate climate change. Decreased cloud cover will make it worse.

One answer:

"But a new study published in the July 24 issue of Science is clearing the haze. A group of researchers from the University of Miami and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography studied cloud data of the northeast Pacific Ocean — both from satellites and from the human eye (based on sailors' logs) — over the past 50 years and combined that with climate models. They found that low-level clouds tend to dissipate as the ocean warms — which means a warmer world could well have less cloud cover. "That would create positive feedback, a reinforcing cycle that continues to warm the climate," says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and the lead author of the Science study."

Edited by nschmald on 07/01/2010 07:26:05 MDT.

From 1900:


From 1970:
.

I feel your pain Arapiles. Looks like the westies nicked all the rain in the last 30 years. There was an equally bad drought in the east around 100 years ago. Not that it's any consolation. Still useful knowledge to be armed with when someone starts up with alarmist nonsense about "UNPRECEDENTED DROUGHT" though.

The cooler times ahead should help bring more rain back to Victoria.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/01/2010 07:25:57 MDT.

One answer:...suggests positive feedback making climate change worse than most of the models currently predict.

If you assume the cause is internal not external.

Another possibility is that the strong solar cycles of the late C20th kept more of the galactic cosmic rays out which are thought to seed cloud formation. Since the sun quietened down after 2003 cloud cover has increased again. It looks like the sun may be entering one of it's periodic (Every 180 years or so) minimums, which could go on for 20-50 years. During these minimums, it's tends to get cloudier and colder. During the Maunder minimum in the 1600's, the Thames and the Rhine froze solid in winter. Experiments are under way at CERN, where Jasper Kirby, principle investigator, is testing the theory put forward by Henrik Svensmark that solar activity modulates cloud cover through it's action on GCR counts.

What mechanism do warmists offer for their idea warmer means less cloudy? You'd think it would be the opposite, since warmer means more evaporation notwithstanding other effects.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/01/2010 07:43:27 MDT.

"What mechanism do warmists offer for their idea warmer means less cloudy? You'd think it would be the opposite, since warmer means more evaporation notwithstanding other effects."

Yeah I would think warmer temps would mean more clouds too. But that is directly contradicted by the data sited above. 50 years of warming correlated with decreased cloud cover.

Hypothesis:

"The data showed that as the Pacific Ocean has warmed over the past several decades — part of the gradual process of global warming — low-level cloud cover has lessened. That might be due to the fact that as the earth's surface warms, the atmosphere becomes more unstable and draws up water vapor from low altitudes to form deep clouds high in the sky. (Those types of high-altitude clouds don't have the same cooling effect.) The Science study also found that as the oceans warmed, the trade winds — the easterly surface winds that blow near the equator — weakened, which further dissipated the low clouds."

Plenty of refutations showing Svensmark contradicted by the data already published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

The CERN study is a laboratory test isolating out so many factors found in a global system as to make the results less than conclusive.

Wikipedia is hopelessly biased on the global warming debate. William Connolly has finally been kicked out though for abuse of authority, so things may (or may not) improve.(Plenty more where he came from).

Too many mights and maybes in the hypothesis you quote for my liking. Make a hypothesis, test it against the empirical data properly.Computer models don't cut it. Cloud has increased again as empirically measured by the Earthshine project (Palle et al). This fits with the sun/gcr theory of Svensmark, not with the continued warming of your GISS trend.

The CERN study is a laboratory test isolating out so many factors found in a global system as to make the results less than conclusive.

Yes, experiments with co2 in bell jars with thermometers run into the same issues.

Uncertainty is a fact of life in climatology. Which is why the IPCC is totally unjustified in giving figures like "90% certainty" for AGW.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/01/2010 08:19:28 MDT.

You can't dismiss a published study by ridiculing the site which links to it. The wiki page links to numerous studies which show minimal correlation between gcr and temperature/cloud cover. Further the wiki page states that the cited papers have not been refuted by Svensmark and co in peer reviewed and published paper. Care to contradict that statement.

The lab tests are one thing. They are necessary to demonstrate a a causal link hypothesis. In addition one needs real world observations to support the hypothesis and a lack of observations which contradict.

Numerous studies show correlation between atmospheric green house gas concentration and temperature. And numerous studies show a lack of correlation between gcr and temperature.

You can't dismiss a published study by ridiculing the site which links to it.

I didn't. I explained why I don't accept wikipedia as an authority worth citing. Then I explained why I don't rate the hypothesis. Two seperate issues.

Let the boys and girls at CERN do their work, and then let's revisit this. It's not worth getting into a citation war about it at this stage.

Thanks for taking up the debate though.

Now, do you like Willie Soon's graph as much as I do?

:-)

You're missing my point. The correlation between gcr and global temperature has already been refuted. If those refutations stand then it doesn't matter what CERN does in the lab as gcr can't explain the real world observations. Which would mean the gcr hypothesis is out the window. That's why the citations matter.

As for global warming causing decreased cloud coverage that's merely a hypothesis, not a theory. No proof for that yet. But it's pretty clear that global warming will not cause increased cloud coverage. So no mitigation from that factor and maybe it will make things worse.

""Exaggerate much?"

Not even a little.

"A PI's job is rarely, if ever, dependent on a grant funding. Not in any uni I've ever worked at. "

You should come across the ditch for a real eye-opener. None of the researchers are tenured or permanent staff. None.

"While particular (junior) positions can be dependent on grant money, I've never seen a post-doc fail to find some source of funding for continued employment if they wanted to. Ie., the job may depend on a particular grant, the person's employment does not." "

Again, this is just plain wrong in much of the world.

"how is grant money an incentive to lie about the *results* of that research?"

I did not say or mean that all the climate researchers are lying about their results, and most folks I know would not do that. But getting grant money very much depends on how you frame your questions, and often researcher are simply *asking* the wrong questions because that's where the funding is. Even more rampant is non-publication of results that are either insignificant or go against the tide of "wisdom". Publication bias is so well known that it should hardly need a mention in a discussion like this.

As I said before, I have no strong opinions on the topic of climate change, mainly because it is far too complex for a non-expert (and probably even for experts) to be certain one way or another. However I accept it is possible that at least some of the grant-funded published research is of less than the highest standard and was pursued for less than the noblest of purposes. I can also guarantee there is much conflicting research that has never even got close to publication for a variety of issues mainly with the peer review process, and even more research that has never been funded due to a similar peer-review processing of the grants.

Edited by retropump on 07/01/2010 14:31:35 MDT.

Thanks guys- I'm enjoying this debate. The point here, in a discussion largely void of policy makers and scientists from these fields, is personal knowledge and entertainment.

I for one, feel that I have a much better understanding of the facts having been an observer of this discussion. While many statements are for fun or spoken by those that have little hard factual knowledge, many of the points and information have been highly informative. While those in a debate might not change the other's viewpoint, they can certainly reinforce or change those of the observers of the debate.

Heading up to the Cascades in a week for a little time near the glaciers that are frightfully smaller than when first photographed. Worrisome stuff.

"Heading up to the Cascades in a week for a little time near the glaciers that are frightfully smaller than when first photographed. Worrisome stuff."


Have a great trip, you Warmist!

+1 Lynn!

And, why should or would university researchers be considered any more or less trustworthy than any other segment of the population?

The correlation between gcr and global temperature has already been refuted. If those refutations stand then it doesn't matter what CERN does in the lab as gcr can't explain the real world observations.

Nia, ask yourself this; if Svensmarks theory had really been refuted, would CERN be utilising their very very expensive resources to test it?

I see these papers all the time. "No correlation found between x and y." It serves one sides agenda, but is it good science? I'll dig out some of the criticisms of the cited papers if you really want a detailed debate. I get the feeling though, that you really want the other side to shut up and sit down so that your side can carry on unopposed.

Science isn't about victory by weight of paper. It's about discovering how our universe is put together. Inconvenient facts, like Willie Soons sunshine hours/surface temp correlation, are not refuted by being ignored.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/01/2010 16:22:11 MDT.

Ken Stewart has been taking a close look at the BOM's temperature records for Victoria...
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/the-australian-temperature-record-part-6-victoria/

@David L and Lynne

I apologize for the tone of my posts yesterday. It's no *excuse*, but the reason for my tone was that I was in a lot of pain. The medication that usually helps with this pain made me nauseous, dizzy, and more than a little cranky. (I'm not joking - crankiness is a known side effect of this medication. Really useful side-effect that.) And that came out in my posts. I'm sorry.

Lynne, I had no idea the research funding model in NZ was so bad. That's terrible for your graduates who want to stay in NZ *and* do research.

No problem Stuart, I wasn't put out or anything.....

" That's terrible for your graduates who want to stay in NZ *and* do research."

Yeah. most of them end up on your soil, the rest go elsewhere. A fair proportion of them change careers after getting knocked down a few times...but none of them (that I know of) *intentionally* misrepresent their research. It's a sensitive issue for me, as I've spent the last ~10 years in a field that I think has NO merit, juts because it's the only way to stay in research. And I've seen so many good folks just give up. I actually discourage young hopefuls from doing a science PhD if they wish to stay in NZ :(

And the funding model here really does force researchers into certain areas
of research. If the government decides that climate change research is a top priority, then that's what you gotta study (the other gravy train here is indigenous studies). A lot of money has gone into making feed that will cause livestock to belch less methane, and breeding stock that are genetically lower methane producers. That's not necessarily a bad thing!

Hi Rog,

>Ken Stewart has been taking a close look at the BOM's temperature records for Victoria...
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/the-australian-temperature-record-part-6-victoria/

This is From Ken Stewarts kenskingdom site

I’m a retired school principal with a keen interest in a range of topics, the main one at the moment being Global Warming. I have a deep seated scepticism for anything produced by governments, political parties, religious organisations. I am very wary of any people with strongly held beliefs they hope to foist on others, such as fundamentalists, jihadis, Greenpeace, global warming fanatics, creationists or intelligent design promoters, neo-Nazis.


An non peer reviewed article by a retired school principal , is that the best you can do.

The more I read of this debate the more I realise that you really have no idea about what is going on with climate change and drought here in Australia, until you have visited Australia and had a look at what is going on, you would be better putting your energies into convincing the NRA BPL members to give up their guns.

Tony