Wednesday
Aug242011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Read all about it!
Aug 24, 2011 Climate: solar 
Given that this looks as though it is going to be a hot climatological topic for a while, if you haven't read it already then you will want to get hold of a copy of Svensmark and Calder's The Chilling Stars.
Reader Comments (23)
While the sun is shining on the sceptics there is now a big black cloud hanging over CAGW.
We now have competing theories.
The planet-wide thick clouds of Venus do not affect the temperature at any given pressure there, so the scattered clouds on Earth do not affect the temperature at any given pressure in our atmosphere:
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect
The proper comparison of Venus and Earth, done for the first time in the nearly 20 years since the Venus data was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft, trumps every climate theory. Everyone will have to come to grips with the overwhelming facts, if they want to make real progress in climate science.
Just ordered!
I wonder if I should buy a second copy to send to CERN researcher Prof Brian Cox? The measure of an honest scientist is of course whether they're able to respond to new evidence by changing firmly-held stances - although having said that I'm very suspicious that Cox did actually reverse an evidence-based position when taken on by the BBC, since in one of his early programmes for them he presented a graph in which historical solar activity correlated astonishingly well with (as I recall) river volumes. Which depend very closely on cloud output in my experience. Very Svensmarkian. Most explanations don't look good for the young Prof. - perhaps he's not bright enough to understand what he was presenting to us? Or alternatively his scientific credibility can be purchased with wads of public money?
I'm willing to be persuaded by other plausible theories - fire away...
I shall be ordering a copy shortly. I have a great deal of respect for Nigel Calder, and I still remember buying a copy of his book "Einstein's Universe" in Methvens in Perth in the late 70s (I think I must have been about 14). My father was a very knowledgeable mechanical and electrical engineer, so I had a good grounding in physics, and I had an excellent physics teacher at school, but it was Calder's book which took me to the next level. I didn't find out till recently that Mrs Lapogus's family, were friends with the Calders, as they lived round the corner in Edinburgh (and still do. If you read this Nigel, thanks for all your efforts over the years - your contribution to science has been immense, and that's before this latest chapter with Svensmark. I hope the book sells well and makes as big an impression on readers (and policy makers) as your Horizon programmes and Einstein's Universe did on me.
you should post some reviews as well:
http://physicsworldarchive.iop.org/full/pwa-pdf/20/6/phwv20i6a36.pdf
Still have the copy I bought in 2007. It's the same level of scientific impact as plate tectonics. It was like reading the last page of a great mystery and saying "But of course!"
It will be interesting to see how the warmists play out this one.
CERN agrees.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/
The BBC response to the CLOUD experiment is now available here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647
Nothing to see here (yet). Move along.
QUOTE Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained.
ENDQUOTE
It will be interesting to see how the warmists play out this one.
At a guess, they'll instantly claim it has been debunked.
CAGW, due to Anthropogenic CO2 emissions, was given the green light because nothing else, according to the brightest starts in Climate Science, could explain the rise in temperature since the 'Little Ice Age'.
That created the consensus, even though the origin of the LIA was, at first problematic and then waved away, as inexplicable other than CO2 production by Man and Mann.
For years the ascendent rise in temperatures was clearly Anthropogenic. The dogma was enshrined in education, Psyience and Psyolitics and reinforced by mass Presstitution by the MSM.
Pre-modern Science, the old fart that used empiricism rather than sitting-on-your bum techniques moulded by 'what we feel should be happening' rather than what is actually happening, just got shoved to the side. The money didn't follow it and 'Post-Modern Science' - aka 'Tell us what we paid you to tell us' took over and swamped, and sometimes intimidated, the more traditional of practionisers.
The sceptics, who utilised arguments about the past stability of Earth history, pointed out absurdities in 'peer/poor reviewed studies' and were publically castigated as 'Big-Oil' shills were relentlessly harassed by compliant 'consenualists'
The Science was never certain. The dollars flowed predominantly towards the consensus opinion. The honours were dropped into the laps of those that supported the consensus and were poised to reap riches beyond belief.
The Science has been challenged. Albeit, by some, grudgingly. The jury is out and as much as it meets with influential world-views isn't it about time that a challenge, at the highest levels, got made. Or are you political ***ts as greedy as we thought you were?
No need to RSVP - Yup, you are! And what makes it worse. We know that you ain't stupid - just evil
From the BBC link above:
Professor Lockwood: "The result that will get climate change sceptics excited..."
Where are these 'climate change sceptics' that he refers to?
I was under the impression that the sceptics were sceptical about man being responsible for climate change, not about climate change itself.
The BBC report says
Does anyone know in which database that sharp rise is shown?
As Per Steve Jones, the BBC only gives the consensus side of the argument.
The BBC report also states "But these ingredients create only a tiny fraction of the cloud seeds formed in the atmosphere."
Shame they never point out that CO2 only makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, only 0.039% by volume the last time I checked, and that it's contribution to the greenhouse effect is a tiny fraction of the part played by water vapour. More BBC bias and sloppy science reporting as usual.
What a lovely title and cover for a book! Straight out of the Golden Age of science fiction, and the hard sci-fi at that!
Indeed, for a nanosecond, until my brain registered the subtitle and the authors, I thought why would the good Bishop promote a sci-fi book from 1950s.
Kudos to whoever chose the title and the cover.
PhilipBratby:
The “sharp rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years” in the BBC report is very odd. The only mention of temperature rise over a fifteen year period that I can recall was Phil Jones’ famous remark that recent temperature rise was not significant.
These BBC chaps can’t even pick cherries any more.
Philip Bratby
The rise in global T is misunderstood by the MSM, which seems to imagine that it is monotonic. In fact it was a step change following the 1998 El Nino:
HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. 1979 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; annual mean.
The substantial increase in the global average temperature anomaly for the surface and lower troposhere following the 1998 El Nino is very evident. GATA is noisy but essentially trendless between the peaks of the 1998 El Nino and the 2010 El Nino - but substantially elevated compared to 1979 - 1997.
Ah, Svensmark, one of the few Danes to have a heartattack on live tv. Glad he made it. Lomborg came to the rescue as far as I remember.....
I will accept any theory rather than the prevailing one. Copy ordered.
This is an excellent book (yeah, got it and read it a year or so ago) and it shows so well why the CLOUD experiment was necessary. Glad that's been done, but it is only a beginning - as Calder and Svensmark would agree.
However, the way this, and especially Svensmark, have been treated by 'The Team' is another disgusting story in the annals of climate science, underlined by the way Jasper Kirby has been muzzled.
9.5 months for Nature to review this CLOUD paper .... no wonder The Team and their acolytes have been so quick off the mark, trying to shoot this down.
The BBC have changed the wording in their article. It now reads:
"Climate scientists point out that there is evidence to show that the sustained rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years cannot be explained by cosmic ray activity."
The rather useful News Sniffer website has the evidence:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/426574/diff/0/1
£2.69 for a second hand copy off fleabay! I'll read it on the beach on Kefalonia.
I dunno, I'm pretty unconvinced by Svensmark's theory. I recently saw the 2007 documentary on ARTE in Germany and it looked to me that the effects of cosmic rays was actually pretty marginal. Much as the effect of CO2 is on the atmosphere. Both sides are right, but the degree is massively overstated.
I was much more impressed by the Israeli scientists who suggested that bad things happen when we fly through cosmic dust clouds.