Re: [asa] IPCC

On 2/12/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At 09:31 AM 2/12/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:
>
> At 09:19 PM 2/11/2007, Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
>
> I came across this recently. It doesn't say a whole lot, but the author is
> supposedly a former editor of the New Scientist.
> *
> An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change*
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
>
>
> *@ I*t was posted by four different people on Free Republic.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782856/posts
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782902/posts
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782953/posts
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1783085/posts
>
> ~ Janice ..... *Is environmentalism the new religion? *
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1782539/posts?page=35#35
>
>
> Did anyone there mention this? Svensmark may be correct with respect to
> cloud condensation and GCR (galactic cosmic rays) but he's wrong about GCR
> having any significant effect on climate change. The problem with respect to
> GCR causing climate change is that it's trendless. GCR counts from Climax
> between 1950 and now show a trendless linear regression, i.e. p=0.477.
> Translation for layman, not statistically significant. So, how does a
> trendless GCR affect global temperature which is going up and to the right
> over the same period? Answer, it doesn't. *As far as I can determine,
> Svensmark has not commented on the lack of trend in GCR. *~ Rich Blinne
>
>
> *@ @ *You may find out some of what he commented on linked at *#9* here:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781810/posts?page=9#9
>

That doesn't address my point and the data curiously stops over a decade
ago. The GCR oscillates in sync with the 11 year sunspot cycle and doesn't
have any longer term trends other than that. If the dominant force was GCR
then based on Svensmark's hypothesis we would expect the temperature
to oscillate. If the dominant force was CO2 we would expect it to be
increasing with time based on the consensus model because that is what the
measured CO2 has done. We will now do an experiment over that last 55 years
so that we could have five cycles of sun spots.. So, we will look at the
difference in GCR for half a century and the difference in temperature.

Here's the details. Looking at the Climax data,
http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/images/0_1950-2006.GIF
ftp://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.1951-.txt we see that
current GCR matches with Climax data for 1/1/1951 with a 4289 reading
for 11/30/2006 and 4303 for 1/1/1951. During the same time period, average
global temperature has increased 0.6 degrees C, based on HadCRUT3 averages
from 2006 and 1951.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

You might say that I picked convenient end points. Fair enough. What about
any trends between 1951 and 2007? Looking again at HadCRUT3, 9 of the
last 10 years were the warmest since 1850. The one that was not the warmest
was 1996 and that was because 1995 was the ninth warmest year on record. The
ten warmest years since 1850 are: 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. That's an eleven year period which nicely
coincides with the sun spot cycle. If solar forcing and/or GCR were dominant
in climate change then some of those years would not be on the top ten, but
they are.

Bottom line: the global warming denier's hypothesis, viz., solar and/or GCR
forcing is the dominant player in global average temperature, stands
falsified. I'm making a subtle point here. I am *not* saying there is no
effect but that it is not dominant. If Svensmark has identified a possible
cloud formation mechanism and since we are near a GCR maximum right now this
effect could be hiding further temperature increases -- much like aerosols
did in the 1970s. In other words, *if Svensmark is right about GCR and
clouds then global warming is an even bigger problem*.

Note to Janice with respect to scientific methodology. This does not prove
that CO2 is causing global warming. Rather, some other
non-falsified mechanism other than solar and/or GCR forcing must explain the
increase in global average temperatures over the last half century. GHG
forcing has not been similarly falsified and that is why it is the current
consensus. It may be wrong but to date no other alternative hypothesis
explains the data better. It is not some grand conspiracy or giant CYA.
Thus, when you say such things you are falsely accusing people and you
unintentionally debase the cause of Christ as a result. This is because
non-Christian climate scientists (and others who are well informed on the
topic) will wrongly assume that falsely accusing people must be the *modus
operandi* of Christians.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 12 17:31:15 2007