Posted on 01/23/2008 2:49:50 PM PST by neverdem
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Lockwood/Gregory-CritiqueLockwood.pdf
It turns out that the CR data was processed to filter out the 11 year solar cycle and the temperature was also highly smoothed. Seems kind of egregious to me. Why filter out the signal that you are looking for?
There are a lot of other problems with Lockwood’s paper but he didn’t respond to Svensmark’s rebuttal because Svensmark wrote on a website. Snotty bastard.
The main reason I posted the graph is just to show that there are a lot of factors involved. Of course as you point out the whole system is roughly balanced so that the temperature of the Earth stays roughly the same. Even if the Earth began to absorb more heat and some ice was melted, eventually the warming Earth would radiate more heat and everything would balance out again at a higher average temperature.
As for the 1-5 degrees, I think that is supposed to be a global average temperature increase. The local temperature at the poles could increase even more than this and I have heard that is what some models predict. I don't know what the ultimate predicted temperature at various latitudes is supposed to be but the 5 degrees does not refer to the temperature at the poles being 5 degrees C.
Based on the previous calculation, an energy imbalance of 1 PW could melt the given amount of ice in about 174 * 49 = 8526 days or about 23 years. Of course some of the heat could go into other parts of the earth or the whole process could involve shifting of additional heat from the oceans to the poles, etc.
The tropical Pacific surface waters are warmer during El Nino and cooler during La Nina. There are some related effects in other ocean basins but I don't know the sum total. Still, the Pacific is so large that as goes the Pacific, so goes the average of the rest of the oceans (i.e., up/down).
If heat is sequestered in the deep ocean during la nina, it would be easy enough to prove with a thermometer. The converse would be true for el nino, it should be easy enough to find colder deep water temperatures.
What should be observed (and the diagrams indicate that this is what is happening) is a deeper thermocline in the western Pacific during La Nina, and a deeper thermocline in the eastern Pacific during El Nino.
Even to prove that the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover matters in the real world needs a lot more work, observes Joanna Haigh. "You need to demonstrate a whole long chain of events - that the atmosphere is ionised, then that the ionised particles act to nucleate the condensation of water vapour, then that you form droplets, and then that you get clouds; and you have to show it's important in comparison to other sources of nucleation. "And that hasn't been demonstrated. Proponents of this mechanism have tended to extrapolate their results beyond what is reasonable from the evidence."
If you're using Occam's Razor, you have to remember that it is the simplest theory that explains ALL the evidence. Note that when you say:
The fact that the surface has warmed faster that the troposphere.
this is only true for the NASA/Huntsville analysis of tropospheric temperatures. The RSS analysis has tropospheric warming at about the same rate as surface warming.
The difference between Arctic and Antarctic warming.
Make sure you don't overlook the fact that the north polar region is a sea and the south polar region is a continent.
Finally, how do you assess this statement:
""Since 1970, the cosmic ray flux has not changed markedly while the global temperature has shown a rapid rise," he says. "And that lack of correlation is proof that the Sun doesn't cause the warming we are seeing now."
Resist the temptation to shoot the messenger(s) and read for content, and you may be surprised.
I would say, charitably, that there is still room for discussion and analysis. However, Svensmark is perfectly capable of writing a paper.
Are the Icecaps melting?
We know the answer.
But we don’t understand the question.
Yes. The icecaps are melting. And they are freezing.
The ‘question’ that they are really asking is “Are the caps disappearing?”.
No. They are simply moving.
Changes in the jet stream and ocean currents can cause changes in the edges of the polar ice cap.
That is what we are ‘seeing’ happen now.
In geological time, the ‘cold’ polar region of the ‘sphere’ does not move.
It is the crust of the Earth which moves. Antartica wasn’t always ‘the south pole’.
“Al Gore’s claim that ocean levels will rise 20 feet thanks to global warming seems to ignore the laws of
...rational thought.”
But since CO2 levels have little effect on climate
Incorrect. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the primary determinant of Earth’s global temperature. That’s what the article is about.
(the reverse is actually true)
Just to be clear...
Climate and global temperature are not the same thing.
Even though GW alarmists and the MSM want us to think so.
Thank you for the graphs. Visuals are always helpful to me, if not to others.
What the graphs really seem to show is that the Climate/Temperature/CO2 mechanism is a very complicated and easily misunderstood system.
The GW alarmists want only to see it as a linear model, using cherry-picked subsets of the data to confirm their claims.
Preach it!
So, according to the models, Greenland isn't destined to melt anytime soon. And when the Arctic Oscillation swings the other way we can expect the Greenland ice sheet to freeze again and the global warming media machine to blackout every single word on the subject.
It's already melting. The small comfort is that the temperature is not increasing rapidly there. It's still increasing, though. An AO reversal might help for awhile.
Not so much an extrapolation as an interpolation. We see a definite, indisputable relationship between the solar activity, cosmic rays and clouds and climate. All that is left is the exact mechanism. In all science throughout history there are things that we know from cause and effect without knowing the intermediate details. You don't need to know anything about nuclear fusion to know that when the Sun rises it is going to get warmer.
If you're using Occam's Razor, you have to remember that it is the simplest theory that explains ALL the evidence.
No, because cosmic rays are not the cause of all the temperature changes. Solar irradiance has an effect, el-nino etc. If you put them all together it explains most of the temperature changes.
this is only true for the NASA/Huntsville analysis of tropospheric temperatures. The RSS analysis has tropospheric warming at about the same rate as surface warming.
But that's better than the CO2 theory which needs a tropospheric warming to heat the surface.
Make sure you don't overlook the fact that the north polar region is a sea and the south polar region is a continent.
What do you mean?
""Since 1970, the cosmic ray flux has not changed markedly while the global temperature has shown a rapid rise," he says. "And that lack of correlation is proof that the Sun doesn't cause the warming we are seeing now."
It's more than just the Sun. When you account for El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade, the bottom of the second chart in post 239 shows a pretty close correlation with temperature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.