Re: [asa] Serious scientists getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate

A press release in 2006 compared to research presented in 2004-2006
debunking much of this. What is one to think of Janice's response...
In fact, more recent research only tends to further undermine the
hopes of global warming deniers.

What the research has shown is that solar contributions to global
warming are much smaller than the anthropogenic component.

Your latest attempt to quote research shows that there are some small
effects of solar output on the climate causing oscillations.

From the article

<quote>However, as they state in the concluding sentence of their
abstract, "the weight of evidence suggests that solar changes have
contributed to small climate oscillations occurring on time scales of
a few centuries, similar in type to the fluctuations classically
described for the last millennium: the so-called Medieval Warm Period
(900-1400 A.D.) followed on by the Little Ice Age (1500-1800
A.D.)."</quote>

So why did Janice quote the research about solar effects which had
later been shown to be erroneous?
She does not explain but seems to believe that quoting more recent
research is going to help her case (it doesn't).

So let's look in more details at her choice of paper

The authors explain in the abstract (which should be accessible to
most anyone with a computer and a curiosity to do research)

<quote>Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes — such
as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming — remains
unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect. Although
we still require even more and better data, the weight of evidence
suggests that solar changes have contributed to small climate
oscillations occurring on time scales of a few centuries, similar in
type to the fluctuations classically described for the last
millennium: The so-called Medieval Warm Period (900–1400 A.D.)
followed on by the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 A.D.).
</quote>

Probably a second order effect, small climate oscillations. Do these
terms need any explanation?

The paper also addresses Janice original argument

<quote>
According to another hypothesis, the warming of the
last few decades could be an indirect effect of solar activity
because the primary irradiance forcing is much too weak to
cause major climatic changes. In particular, Svensmark and
colleagues [19,20] have given new life to an old hypothesis
about the influence of cosmic radiation on cloud formation
[21]. This can be viewed as a rather simplistic analogue to
the principle of the "cloud chamber", a type of particle
detector formerly used in physics. In this device, inter-
actions between ionizing particles and gas molecules
produce ions that serve as condensation nuclei along the
trajectories of the particles.
The hypothesis put forward by Svensmark and col-
leagues depends on the magnetic field of the solar wind
modulating the incoming cosmic rays: a minimum of
activity of the Sun goes hand in hand with an increase in
the cosmic radiation on Earth and would raise the number
of condensation nuclei and ultimately increase cloud
cover. This theory received a lot of attention in 1997 [19],
when a positive correlation was first presented linking
cloudiness with the intensity of cosmic radiation modu-
lated by the Sun over the period 1984–1991.
It should be emphasized that the hypothesis is still very
poorly quantified on several levels, such as the relation-
ship between cosmic rays and clouds, as well as the
temporal and spatial variations of the solar modulation
[22]. Moreover, subsequent studies have failed to confirm
the relationship [23,24]. Regional data from the United

States even appear to show an opposite correlation to that
proposed by Svensmark [25]. Thus, despite the fact that
the cosmic ray hypothesis stimulated numerous research
initiatives in this field, it was premature to suggest it could
possibly explain all global temperature variations between
1970 and 1990 [19]. Indeed, even the original correlation
reported by Svensmark and colleagues did not show a
long-term trend over several decades.

</quote>

So much can be learned by reading.

On 1/16/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> At 02:23 PM 1/16/2007, Pim wrote:
>
> "...much is made of the work by Friis and Christensen and an unfamiliarity
> can be detected with the rebuttals by for instance Damon and Laut.
> ... There is just no excuse for not doing the research... "
> @ Most of the "rebuttals" you provide are almost 10 years old. The latest
> is dated 2004. Those were already referred to in the press release I posted
> which was dated in early October 2006. There is just no excuse for not
> doing legitimate research dated after 2004.
>
> For instance, here is the latest:
>
> http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
> The Role of the Sun in Global Climate Change
> Reviewed 17 January 2007
>
> Reference
> Bard, E. and Frank, M. 2006. Climate change and solar variability: What's
> new under the sun? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 248: 1-14.
>
> Background
> Lastovicka (2006), in broadly summarizing recent advancements in the field,
> has recently written that "new results from various space and ground-based
> experiments monitoring the radiative and particle emissions of the sun,
> together with their terrestrial impact, have opened an exciting new era in
> both solar and atmospheric physics," stating that "these studies clearly
> show that the variable solar radiative and particle output affects the
> earth's atmosphere and climate in many fundamental ways."
>
> What was done
> In a review of this broad area of research, Bard and Frank consider
> "changes on different time scales, from the last million years up to recent
> decades," and in doing so "critically assess recent claims that the
> variability of the sun has had a significant impact on global climate."
>
> What was learned
> "Overall," in the judgment of the two researchers, the role of solar
> activity in causing climate change "remains unproven." However, as they
> state in the concluding sentence of their abstract, "the weight of evidence
> suggests that solar changes have contributed to small climate oscillations
> occurring on time scales of a few centuries, similar in type to the
> fluctuations classically described for the last millennium: the so-called
> Medieval Warm Period (900-1400 A.D.) followed on by the Little Ice Age
> (1500-1800 A.D.)."
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:05:12 -0800