The difference between previous warming events and this warming event is exactly the timescale: the current one is seemingly occurring much faster than previous ones.
Antidogma, what Bamber did is exactly what you asked me to do: to discuss the 'facts' of the program. He has shown you that one of these 'facts' is irrelevant. However, because of your confirnation bias (check my post on that) you choose to ignore that.
Originally posted by Hobbes007: The difference between previous warming events and this warming event is exactly the timescale: the current one is seemingly occurring much faster than previous ones.
Antidogma, what Bamber did is exactly what you asked me to do: to discuss the 'facts' of the program. He has shown you that one of these 'facts' is irrelevant. However, because of your confirnation bias (check my post on that) you choose to ignore that.
You argue that the correlation exists historically but has recently disappeared. One way to test this proposition is to slice up your graph in 20 year segments and to see if the inverse correlation held for the majority of those segments. If you were to find a good number of 20 year periods where the inverse correlation did not hold then we could be living in one of those periods, could we not ?
Yes, that would be a good way of testing that particular hypothesis.
The problem may be that cosmic ray data for long periods of time may not be available, certainly not through direct measurements.
However, I have enough confidence in the scientific process to assume that if the test is possible, someone will already have done it or will do it in the near future.
Originally posted by antidogma: Let me rephrase the question:
You argue that the correlation exists historically but has recently disappeared. One way to test this proposition is to slice up your graph in 20 year segments and to see if the inverse correlation held for the majority of those segments. If you were to find a good number of 20 year periods where the inverse correlation did not hold then we could be living in one of those periods, could we not ?
I guess we might be, but cosmic ray flux records only go back to 1953, so we have to make do with what we've got.
I produced this graph, the day after the show, because I was so impressed by the similar plot they produced. I was actually a bit disappointed that the sun was not the culprit (I got sunburn once and have held a grudge ever since). For them to only show a subset of the data available is outrageous IMO.
Originally posted by antidogma: Let me rephrase the question:
You argue that the correlation exists historically but has recently disappeared. One way to test this proposition is to slice up your graph in 20 year segments and to see if the inverse correlation held for the majority of those segments. If you were to find a good number of 20 year periods where the inverse correlation did not hold then we could be living in one of those periods, could we not ?
I guess we might be, but cosmic ray flux records only go back to 1953, so we have to make do with what we've got.
I produced this graph, the day after the show, because I was so impressed by the similar plot they produced. I was actually a bit disappointed that the sun was not the culprit (I got sunburn once and have held a grudge ever since). For them to only show a subset of the data available is outrageous IMO.
So in the absence of that data a logical assumption to make is that it is quite possible that the inverse correlation did not hold for many of the 20 year periods piror to 1953. Maybe it did, mybe it didn't - we just don't know. In that case I don't think you can arrive at any conclusion either way about the current time peiod, based on the data that you have presented.
Your reasoning points to the inherent uncertainty in any scientific theory: a theory is just as good as the observations it is trying to explain.
However, it doesn't buy you anything to want to try explain observations you don't have. That's why, given all the current observations about cosmic rays, it is more likely to assume there is not the correlation between the two measurements that Durkin made out to be.
Originally posted by Bamber: I agree. However if you just look at 1953-> to the mid 80's, as the show did as the show did, you might reach an erroneous one.
Yes I agree. The earth's processes run over centuries. A couple of decades is a mere blip and not a meaningful period for arguing in favour or against man-made global warming.
Originally posted by Bamber: I agree. However if you just look at 1953-> to the mid 80's, as the show did as the show did, you might reach an erroneous one.
Yes I agree. The earth's processes run over centuries. A couple of decades is a mere blip and not a meaningful period for arguing in favour or against man-made global warming.
Oy !! Stay on topic, this thread is about debunking one aspect of the show last night. I will not get drawn into bickering.
Originally posted by Bamber: I agree. However if you just look at 1953-> to the mid 80's, as the show did as the show did, you might reach an erroneous one.
Yes I agree. The earth's processes run over centuries. A couple of decades is a mere blip and not a meaningful period for arguing in favour or against man-made global warming.
Oy !! Stay on topic, this thread is about debunking one aspect of the show last night. I will not get drawn into bickering.
I guess my point is that your data hasn't debunked it because you can't draw any conculsions from a 20 year time period about processes which take centuries. And you can't compare this time period with previous centuries because you don't have data to the same level of detail for that longer time period.
Looking at that graph, I would say the relationship is equally good/bad over the whole time period. It starts off in 1950 with high comsic and high temp. It is then inverse until about 1960, when the realtionship is lost. Again, around 1975, there is a peak of temp that doesnt have a corresponding dip in comsic rays. 1987 or so, the relationship is lost again, but only brieflty, as in the early 1990s it is restored. Then theres another blip around 1995, where the comsic rays and the temp are both up, but from about 1999, the inverse relationship is restored. So, there is basiclly blips all along that graph, so it is very hard to argue that there is/isnt a correlation at any point in it. You should test to see if there is any significant correlation (statisticly).
What is perhaps more significant is the magnitude of the cosmic ray flux does not change, while the temp is clearly going up. Also, pre 1970's it looks as if cosmic rays may be leading temp, but after that it looks almost as if temp is leading cosmic rays.
what do they represent. Global temperature or local temperature?
I must admit I don't fully understand how the solar wind blows these rays away - but any info on this might also be good - i.e. where and how are the rays measured....
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. Blaise Pascal
Just a quickie! Did the programme correctly state the way clouds are formed? I.e sub atomic rays from outer space metting water vapour on the way up and so on??
I think channel 4 should do a follow up. GGWS II with knobs on to put a few of their claims straight, maybe they should of done GGWS the movie and included more data. Wonder if Mr Bair watched it with Cherie!!?
Originally posted by Bamber: I've produced a scaled plot comparing cosmic ray flux and mean global temperature.
Atually neutron monitor records going back to 1953 show no correlation that could account for the warming.
When Cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere they create a cascade of neutrons, this cascade of particles increases cloud cover to some degree.
So by monitoring neutrons you can tell what's happening to cosmic rays.
(quote from an earlier post of mine) You can see for yourself how the climax neutron monitor shows no trend in neutrons. Go to <http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/clmx/main.htm> the main page of the climax neutron monitor site. If you select the start year to the earliest possible, 1953, and leave the end period, which should be 1997. You can click on "Plot" and you will see a level graph with no overall trend. None of the papers touted as accounting for Global Warming demonstrate an agreement with the warming of the last 30 years.
Originally posted by Have a Word: more info would be good
where do the figures come from
what do they represent. Global temperature or local temperature?
I must admit I don't fully understand how the solar wind blows these rays away - but any info on this might also be good - i.e. where and how are the rays measured....
Originally posted by Have a Word: I must admit I don't fully understand how the solar wind blows these rays away - but any info on this might also be good - i.e. where and how are the rays measured....
Hello have a word,
Cosmic rays are really particles from the Sun and from other stars. Most are protons but there are also other particles.
When they hit the atmosphere they are so energtic that they smash atoms apart and create a cascade of particle into the atmosphere. These particles create cloud condensation nuclei that attract condensing water vapour and form the basis of the droplets that make up a cloud.
So the theory is that cloud cover can be changed by how many cosmic rays hit the earths atmosphere.
How much we get hit depends on how active the sun is in terms of emitting the rays, and how strong it's magnetic field is in terms of deflecting the ones from other stars.
It's hard to say what correlation we should be looking for here.
More cosmic rays means more cloud, although the degree of this effect is still controversial.
More cloud can mean warming because cloud can trap outgoing infrared radiation.
More cloud can mean cooling because cloud can reflect sunlight back into space.
The atmosphere itself (pressure I think) can affect the intensity of nutron cascades.
To date this theory remains unlikely with regards explaining the post 1970's warming. And if you look at the Cosmic ray flux you'll see that the size of the regular variation is bigger than the apparent trend. The regular up and down is due to the solar cycle.
The problem is if a small trend like you show could account for the observed warming where is the response in global average temperature that correlates with solar cycles? I've read that it's detectable, but it's not as apparent as the post 1970s warming. And any effect should be quick as CRF should make cloud condensation nuclei immediately.
As I said before, you really cant say anything from that graph. There is as much of a correlation pre 1980 as there is post 1980. Looking at it I would argue that there is no correlation. However, as pointed, trying to obsevere a correlation over such a short time period on things that are pretty variable (ie so few points for something so variable) as well as not factoring in other effects means it is imposible to infer anything.
As for cloud formation, doesnt dust particles have a lot to do with it (well, stuff that isnt cosmic ray related). There was a program about global dimming which seemed to imply that we were pumping out particles (such as sulphur compounds) that were causing an increase in cloud cover. So im not sure how much cosmic rays influence cloud cover (cant really remember it that well, so any info you more informed guys have would be useful).
