APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)

[Dr. Skeptic]

Chris Peterson wrote:

"I think you don't understand how science works in the real world. There are almost never incentives to take the consensus viewpoint. Science is competitive, and scientists are largely driven by their desire for prestige- not finances. There is no better way for a scientist to gain prestige in climate science than by demonstrating that some mainstream belief is incorrect. That competition is what drives research. Very, very few climate scientists are in the sort of political positions you refer to."

It would appear others share my impression of the real world:

.............................................................

Science a Slave to Expediency

By John McLean, The Australian

The notion that human activity has an alarming influence on climate is based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and spurious claims about a scientific consensus. Independent scientists who question these claims are accused of being in the pay of the energy industry and of believing that the notion of man-made climate change is a conspiracy.

To the best of my knowledge, no climate conspiracy has ever existed. But another force has driven science into its present parlous state where the output of computer software is held in higher regard than observational data, where marketing spin is more important than fact and evidence, and where a trenchant defence of the notion of man-made global warming is seen as paramount. The single, pre-eminent force driving this distortion of science originates in the once-august UN.

For many years climate researchers have understood that their proposals will only be funded if they are pitched in line with government policy. Even worse, unless some aspect of their results appears to perpetuate government thinking, renewal of their funding is unlikely. Other climatologists are acutely aware of the potential consequences for their employers and their own employment prospects should they speak out in criticism of the dominant alarmist paradigm. Scientists who have criticised the hypothesis of human-caused climate change have had their funding curtailed or employment terminated.

Climate modellers have been very aware that their expensive and powerful computing facilities would be supported only if their research produced alarmist climate predictions. This notwithstanding, these models often produced results that were not in good agreement with historical data, perhaps because they poorly replicated or even omitted variations in climate.

These deficiencies and more have been papered over by reviving outdated and inaccurate research about the warming effect of carbon dioxide. The numbers still didn’t add up but the inclusion of some “positive feedbacks” masked the problem, and the models were declared “proof” of a significant human influence on climate.

The peer-review process was originally a sanity check for the editors of scientific journals but has always been open to abuse by reviewers who wish to support or suppress a particular line of argument. The recent narrow focus of climate research funding has caused an outburst of scientific papers that support the IPCC’s alarmist beliefs and relatively few papers that contradict it. Reviewers with vested interests suppress contradictory papers and support the “official” line.

Vested interests now dominate climate science. Whether climatologists, their employers and other people believe the government-approved line has become irrelevant, because they all wish to retain an income stream and whatever reputations they’ve established. These people advise governments, which subsequently set policy and research funding regardless of any contradiction with observational data. Climate science is no longer an impartial truth but a slave to the yoke of politics and opportunism. If this continues, society will be the inevitable loser.

John McLean is a climate data analyst and a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition.

Not to say that there isn't some truth in the article sited, but for it to have merit I would need to see sited proof of data fabrication, omission and cover-up. Also it suggests that a majority of climatologists are conspiring for monetary gains. I know of few scientists that aren't Ego drive - "steal my wife, my car ... but don't you dare prove me wrong!". Yes there are scientist that prostitute themselves, but an entire field?

[Chris Peterson]

Not to say that there isn't some truth in the article sited, but for it to have merit I would need to see sited proof of data fabrication, omission and cover-up. Also it suggests that a majority of climatologists are conspiring for monetary gains. I know of few scientists that aren't Ego drive - "steal my wife, my car ... but don't you dare prove me wrong!". Yes there are scientist that prostitute themselves, but an entire field?

Exactly. Painting the entire climate research community this way comes across as nothing more than yet another crazy conspiracy theory.

The people who see things this way are reading a very narrow cross section of the literature- mainly the politicized (one way or the other) compilations of the original research. I read many papers in Science and Nature, and several things are apparent: most of the work is not the product of huge grants, most of it does not depend on supercomputers or ultra-expensive equipment, most is not being conducted by people that ever publish in the mainstream press. The vast majority of climate research is about filling in little holes and answering small questions- valuable work, but not the sort of thing that inspires researchers to fraud. And most of it produces concrete and reliable results, not subject to much in the way of alternate explanations. In short, very uncontroversial.

The bigger picture conclusions are very dependent on all this underlying work, and would be much less controversial if more people understood the foundations it is based upon.

[gpobserver]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

"Not to say that there isn't some truth in the article sited, but for it to have merit I would need to see sited proof of data fabrication, omission and cover-up. "

Try opening your eyes. How about this report I cited earlier:

http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.c ... -wang.html

One thing that is apparent about your postings, Chris Peterson, is that you WANT the AGW hypothesis to be true. You endorse the hypothesis with religious zealotry, refusing to consider any possible doubts. You accept the outputs of computer models and dismiss measurements of the actual climate system. The models predict a warming of the equatorial mid-troposphere but none is seen in the data. You talk about finite-element modeling but these 'finite-elements' are on the order of a kilometer in size, far too larger to proper reproduce actual phenomena such as turbulence, cloudiness, precipitation, and convection. You dismiss the urban heat island effect and the influence of solar activity without really trying to understand those phenomena simply because they are contrary to the narrative you endorse. Perhaps you are a scientist but not when it comes to the climate change discussion. I'm wondering why it is you so desperately want humans to be proven responsible for climate change? Do you think humans are evil creatures and the earth would be better off without us? I don't understand the loathing environmentalists have for people and Western Civilization.

Roy Tucker

[Chris Peterson]

One thing that is apparent about your postings, Chris Peterson, is that you WANT the AGW hypothesis to be true. You endorse the hypothesis with religious zealotry, refusing to consider any possible doubts.

I no more want AGW to be true than I want conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics to be true. These are theories that have much support, but if better evidence comes along, no problem (quite interesting, in fact). The religious types seem to be in the anti-AGW crown, dogmatically standing behind their cherry-picked counter-evidence and ignoring everything else, accusing the scientific community of some sort of global conspiracy, and generally sticking to their beliefs regardless of what the evidence shows.

I've said all along where the doubts are. I accept that the predictions may be wrong, but see little reason to think they might be badly wrong. I know for darn sure that the underlying science is solid, and that's really the point. Those who call it "pseudoscience" or "bad science" are completely betraying their own lack of knowledge on the subject, and in science in general.

There are two issues, the science and the policy based on the science. The science is of high quality. The results cover a broad range of possible scenarios, but all lean in the direction of increased warming over the next decades. The majority of the scientific community accepts that these predictions are the best we are capable of making.

As a matter of policy, what to do comes down to the usual political tradeoffs, influence peddling, cost-benefit studies (when we're lucky), and all kinds of other stuff. Everybody has a different opinion on how much, if any, action to take. I happen to think that we should aggressively seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I'd believe that even if the science were much less certain. That's because the consequences of a failure to act if the worst case predictions come to pass are very serious, and I consider (as do many scientists) that policy in this case should actually be based on the worst-case scenarios, not the nominal scenario.

[bhrobards]

I can't take the time in this post to make the arguments and cite the evidence for the electrical nature of the solar system, I'll get to it.

I'd advise against it. Discussion of the electric Universe, plasma cosmology, and other pseudoscience derived from the discredited work of Alfvén is grounds for being banned from this forum. At the least, it's a quick way to get a thread locked.

Your statement that the plume of a volcano is not a plasma is ridiculous on its face. The temperature of the plume insures that it is.

You might want to do a little research on the temperature in a volcano's ash plume, and compare that to the ionization temperature of various atmospheric constituents. You might also want to look at the difference between a charge structure in a volcanic plume, and what "ionization" means.

I've been corresponding with some leading volcano researchers, preliminaries don't look good for the Patterson theory of vocanic plumes, but I'm waiting for an authoritative answer before I post. Pseudoscience is unsupportable and unfalsifiable. That describes string theory but not plasma cosmology. As to the "discredited Hannes Alfven" [what discredited work, electrohydrodynamics(nobel prize)?]for those who don't know who he is here is his bio written by Anthony L. Peratt who's bio is also included lest someone claim he's a heretic.http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/ ... eratt.html
Plume temps have been measured at up to 1200 C. Why would you want to compare the plume's temp to the ionization temp of atmospheric components? The atmosphere isn't coming out of the volcano.

Since I can't seem to PM a moderator I must ask, are you kidding, evidence for EU or PC theories will get you the boot?

[Chris Peterson]

I've been corresponding with some leading volcano researchers, preliminaries don't look good for the Patterson theory of vocanic plumes, but I'm waiting for an authoritative answer before I post. Pseudoscience is unsupportable and unfalsifiable. That describes string theory but not plasma cosmology.

That's an incomplete definition of pseudoscience. String theory is not pseudoscience; it does produce testable predictions in some cases. They just aren't currently testable. It would be best described as a weak theory because of the difficulty of making tests- that's quite different from pseudoscience.

Plasma cosmology started out (weakly) as science. But the vast majority of the material that falls under that name has already been falsified. It has entered into the realm of pseudoscience because people who don't know better try to keep it alive, using arguments and evidence that isn't valid.

As to the "discredited Hannes Alfven" [what discredited work, electrohydrodynamics(nobel prize)?

For his "work" (belief would be a better word) arguing that electric and magnetic fields play a significant role across stellar, interstellar, galactic, and intergalactic distances. For things like star formation. For galaxy formation and evolution. These things are all contradicted by simple observation, and plasma cosmology is unable to provide any predictions for the major features of the Universe. After a brief period of exploration in the 1970s, the idea was discarded. Those who continue to push it are as much pseudoscientists as homeopaths or intelligent design proponents.

Plume temps have been measured at up to 1200 C. Why would you want to compare the plume's temp to the ionization temp of atmospheric components? The atmosphere isn't coming out of the volcano.

Correction: the very hottest ash flows have been observed at 1200°C. Volcanic gases are typically emitted at less than 400°C. In a volcanic plume, the temperature is below 100°C just a short distance above the volcano (where there is still plenty of lightning to be seen). However, even at a high magma temperature of 1200°C, you don't have enough heat to produce a plasma. Sorry, there's not the slightest shred of evidence that volcanic plumes contain matter in a plasma state.

Since I can't seem to PM a moderator I must ask, are you kidding, evidence for EU or PC theories will get you the boot?

It has come up in other discussions. I have little doubt that if you persist with either, you'll be advised by a moderator of the forum policy.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

"Not to say that there isn't some truth in the article sited, but for it to have merit I would need to see sited proof of data fabrication, omission and cover-up. "

Try opening your eyes. How about this report I cited earlier:

http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.c ... -wang.html

One thing that is apparent about your postings, Chris Peterson, is that you WANT the AGW hypothesis to be true. You endorse the hypothesis with religious zealotry, refusing to consider any possible doubts. You accept the outputs of computer models and dismiss measurements of the actual climate system. The models predict a warming of the equatorial mid-troposphere but none is seen in the data. You talk about finite-element modeling but these 'finite-elements' are on the order of a kilometer in size, far too larger to proper reproduce actual phenomena such as turbulence, cloudiness, precipitation, and convection. You dismiss the urban heat island effect and the influence of solar activity without really trying to understand those phenomena simply because they are contrary to the narrative you endorse. Perhaps you are a scientist but not when it comes to the climate change discussion. I'm wondering why it is you so desperately want humans to be proven responsible for climate change? Do you think humans are evil creatures and the earth would be better off without us? I don't understand the loathing environmentalists have for people and Western Civilization.

Roy Tucker

The report you sited (I saw no reason to study it) is based on the allegations of the action of one person. I'm looking for evidence of a wide spread conspiracy amongst the scientific community. Unless there is proof that Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is the master mind raking in millions $ for his cohorts (not sited and your stated motive), this fails as supportive evidence for you case. What I see in this article is a difference of "opinion" in the interpretation of data, which is understandable based on it's complexity. At this time I guarantee there is no conclusive evidence for either side of the argument, without conclusive empirical data, it leaves biased opinions. I could equally site "bad science" articles funded by big oil to supporting your opinion, (rhetorically) would you have the same critical eye for these reports?

[gpobserver]

Chris Peterson wrote:

"I know for darn sure that the underlying science is solid, and that's really the point. Those who call it "pseudoscience" or "bad science" are completely betraying their own lack of knowledge on the subject, and in science in general."

and

"The science is of high quality."

Let us apply the Scientific Method:

(1) Observe a phenomenon
(2) Develop a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon
(3) Attempt to falsify that hypothesis by testing
(4) If a hypothesis is falsified, return to steps (1) and (2). A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be falsified may perhaps be correct.

Hypothesis: AGW science is good science.

Test 1 - AGW proponents report factually all of their data, methods, and findings.

Wang et al publishes papers suggesting urban heat island effect cannot account for apparently rising temperatures. Makes unsupported statements, refuses to reveal data, home institution engages in cover-up.
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.c ... -wang.html
Conclusion: Bad science

Michael Mann produces famously discredited "Hockey Stick" graph purporting to show rapidly increasing global temperatures and an absence of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum, and the Little Ice Age. Refuses to reveal methods and data.
http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/MANNDEBUNKING.doc
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
Conclusion: Bad science

Test 2 - Computer models accurately predict consequences of increased CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Models predict a warming of the equatorial mid-troposphere. No such warming seen.
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_p ... /22835.pdf
Conclusion: Bad science

Models predict a warming of the climate. No such warming seen in satellite data or balloon data.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... ct97_1.htm
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... _Show.html
Conclusion: Bad science

Models do not properly take into account solar activity.
http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/en/ ... 3511992_en
Conclusion: Bad science

Models generally flawed and inadequate.
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?pa ... &id=238162
Conclusion: Bad science

Test 3 - The world is getting warmer.

The warmest year on record in the past century was 1934.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24

No highest temperature records since 1974.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/a ... -abnormal/

These are but three tests that support falsification of the AGW hypothesis and the assertion that it is 'good science'. I can easily think of more. When challenged, I have responded with facts and alternative explanations. When I have challenged AGW proponents, I have been met with ad hominem attacks, platitudes, bumper sticker slogans, but no serious countering facts. I am generally disappointed by the level of scientific debate by proponents. Who is it that is actually "completely betraying their own lack of knowledge on the subject, and in science in general"?

Best regards,
Roy Tucker

[gpobserver]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

"The report you sited..." Should be "cited" as in "citation".

Dear Dr. Skeptic,

If you want more reports of scientific malfeasance and fraud, simply do a Google search for "global warming fraud". You will find over 18,000 hits including noted climatologists, US senators, and heads of state alleging that the AGW hypothesis is false and is supported for political reasons. You may assert that the hidden hand of 'Big Oil' is behind the opposition to the AGW hypothesis. I could equally assert that Luddites, communists, opportunists, and environmental extremists are behind the promotion of the AGW hypothesis. Perhaps we're both right. Fundamentally, the science should decide the truth and, right now, the science is heavily politicized. I am not supported by 'Big Oil' and the evidence I see indicates the sun and the galactic cosmic ray environment controls terrestrial climate. My scientific training imparted to me a keen appreciation of scientific integrity and I am deeply offended by the perversion of the scientific debate for political objectives, personal gains, and self-aggrandisement by some of those who support the AGW hypothesis.

You state "At this time I guarantee there is no conclusive evidence for either side of the argument". If you would actually examine the report (since you said, "I saw no reason to study it"), you would see that Albany University blatantly violated its own published policies and procedures regarding allegations of scientific fraud. I think that counts as conclusive evidence of a cover-up. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to study the report rather than dismiss it out of hand.

There are other such scientific misdeeds such as the Hockey-Stick graph of Michael Mann. Look for bad science and you can find it. Follow the money.

-Roy Tucker

[apodman]

I almost think today's APOD has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with a devious little experiment to see if we can attain a thread with a new highest reply count.

The experiment is working.

Strange Streak (locked) - 2124 replies
Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista - 381 replies
Lewin's Challenge Image (locked) - 332 replies
Voynich Manuscript Discussion (locked) - 280 replies
This Topic - 259 replies

This topic may soon move into 4th place, but it's a long way to 1st. Perhaps a moderator could merge this topic with Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista to give it a boost. It's the same topic anyway, and the replies are just as educational.

---

To be fair, here are the contenders from the Café ...

Origins of the Universe (locked) - 829 replies
How fast can we go? - 350 replies
Could dark matter possibly be ... (locked) - 315 replies
Inner Core of our sun (locked) - 294 replies

[StACase]

...
Test 3 - The world is getting warmer.

The warmest year on record in the past century was 1934.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24
...

1934 is the warmest year for the continental United States, not the world.

[gpobserver]

More falsification of the AGW hypothesis:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/t ... #more-7646

- Roy Tucker

[Dr. Skeptic]

You state "At this time I guarantee there is no conclusive evidence for either side of the argument". If you would actually examine the report (since you said, "I saw no reason to study it"), you would see that Albany University blatantly violated its own published policies and procedures regarding allegations of scientific fraud. I think that counts as conclusive evidence of a cover-up. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to study the report rather than dismiss it out of hand.

The reason for the dismissal is it's base on data interpretation (opinion) and not on empirical data.

One or several cases of fraud isn't a conspiracy with out linked motives. It is easy to find fraud on both sides of the argument, once again unless you have proof that Albany University's fraud was somehow funded or prejudiced by some conspirator it is not valid evidence of the conspiracy you claim - no more valid that the "big oil" conspiracy theory (that you may be unknowingly a victim of ).
The reason the argument can be sparred endlessly is because the empirical data is inconclusive. If there was conclusive data, the holder of that data would have far more(personal)gain by using it than repressing it.

[bystander]

This topic may soon move into 4th place, but it's a long way to 1st.

webdoctorgeorge is in 2nd by a large margin (1265 replies).

[apodman]

Yeah, but webdoctorgeorge is a person, not a topic.

And webdoctorgeorge is also a spamster whose posts have been deleted.

[bystander]

Yeah, but webdoctorgeorge is a person, not a topic.

And webdoctorgeorge is also a spamster whose posts have been deleted.

webdoctorgeorge is a topic in and of himself, with all his posts hidden away for none to see.

[apodman]

I thought maybe your moderator's view was different from my member's view, and you have confirmed it. So I can still get the doctor's great prescription prices if I go through you, huh?

[BMAONE23]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

"The report you sited..." Should be "cited" as in "citation".

Dear Dr. Skeptic,

If you want more reports of scientific malfeasance and fraud, simply do a Google search for "global warming fraud". You will find over 18,000 hits including noted climatologists, US senators, and heads of state alleging that the AGW hypothesis is false and is supported for political reasons. You may assert that the hidden hand of 'Big Oil' is behind the opposition to the AGW hypothesis. I could equally assert that Luddites, communists, opportunists, and environmental extremists are behind the promotion of the AGW hypothesis. Perhaps we're both right. Fundamentally, the science should decide the truth and, right now, the science is heavily politicized. I am not supported by 'Big Oil' and the evidence I see indicates the sun and the galactic cosmic ray environment controls terrestrial climate. My scientific training imparted to me a keen appreciation of scientific integrity and I am deeply offended by the perversion of the scientific debate for political objectives, personal gains, and self-aggrandisement by some of those who support the AGW hypothesis.

You state "At this time I guarantee there is no conclusive evidence for either side of the argument". If you would actually examine the report (since you said, "I saw no reason to study it"), you would see that Albany University blatantly violated its own published policies and procedures regarding allegations of scientific fraud. I think that counts as conclusive evidence of a cover-up. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to study the report rather than dismiss it out of hand.

There are other such scientific misdeeds such as the Hockey-Stick graph of Michael Mann. Look for bad science and you can find it. Follow the money.

-Roy Tucker

Google search on GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD 18300 hits
Google search on GLOBAL WARMING FACTS 51400 hits
Google search on GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE 13900 hits
Google search on GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT 36900 hits
You will likely find an equal number of dissenting opinions posted to the web and searchable through Google. But the vast majority are just that...opinions. Based on Interpretation of data that is viewed through glasses polarized with either an AGW filter or polarized with an Anti AGW filter. You choose to put more credance on those which lean more toward your personal belief which is skewed by your understanding of what is science and which science is more trustworthy.

[The Code]

Difference of opinion.. Three words. Just role off the tongue don,t they?

Very power full words. How many people have died in the last 5000 years because of these three words?

Have a good think.....



How many have to die again, before the Difference of opinion is resolved?

Mark

[BMAONE23]

My point was that Google is a good tool to find useful information on the web. One just needs to know to separate out which is presenting good science and which is presenting opinion. Of the 18000 hits cited by gpobserver, probably 50 will contain useful information and the rest will likely be posts made by somewhat uninformed laymen on Blog sites and bulletin boards where current arguements are progressing on the very subject. If you look at your Google search you will find your own asterisk post as one of the hits, and mine as another.

[The Code]

my post was not aimed at you BMAONE23....

Its aimed at the hole world...

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

You will likely find an equal number of dissenting opinions posted to the web and searchable through Google. But the vast majority are just that...opinions. Based on Interpretation of data that is viewed through glasses polarized with either an AGW filter or polarized with an Anti AGW filter. You choose to put more credance on those which lean more toward your personal belief which is skewed by your understanding of what is science and which science is more trustworthy.

Very true, when you're looking for information on the Internet (unless you really know what you're doing). As a scientist, and somebody who believes in the power of science, I trust original research reports. And there, you are hard pressed to find many that dispute AGW (although there is great variety in conclusions about mechanism and degree). That's why I consider it highly likely that AGW is a real thing. Of course, there's no way to sell that approach to anyone who believes in conspiracies. It's no different than trying to convince somebody who thinks we never went to the Moon that they are wrong. Science and conspiracy theories are pretty much at odds on a fundamental level.

[BMAONE23]

my post was not aimed at you BMAONE23....

Its aimed at the hole world...

Mark

I bear you no ill will ( I didn't take it as aimed in my direction)

[Dr. Skeptic]

If one side has 100,000 skewed studies and the other side has 100,001, that does not constitute a win.

It reminds me of a story.
A grade school classroom was given a gift of a fluffy, long haired baby bunny. With the task of assigning a name for their new mascot they had to determine if it was a boy, or, if it was a girl - the students were at a complete loss how to make this determination. So they decided to hold it to a vote ...

Galileo was voted wrong on heliocentrism. The facts, on their own merits, need to be strong enough to trump opinions because opinion infested interpretations are a disservice to everyone.

[gpobserver]

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Of course, there's no way to sell that approach to anyone who believes in conspiracies. It's no different than trying to convince somebody who thinks we never went to the Moon that they are wrong. Science and conspiracy theories are pretty much at odds on a fundamental level."

Ah, yes, the usual routine. You can't defend the science so you attack the opponent with accusations of being a 'flat-earther', a 'moon-landing-denier', or some other allegation of feeble-mindedness or scientific ignorance. I have previously listed a number of things that suggested falsification of the AGW hypothesis. How about simply trying to refute one of those things? How about trying to explain why we don't see the equatorial mid-tropospheric warming predicted by the computer models (http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_p ... /22835.pdf) or how about explaining why the oceans are losing heat instead of warming up as predicted (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/t ... #more-7646)? It should be a trivial exercise for someone who is so familiar with the science. Simply asserting that the "science is solid" is an inadequate refutation. I shall be very interested to see how you try to explain that the output of a computer model is a more convincing demonstration of the truth of the AGW hypothesis than observations of the actual system are a falsification of the hypothesis.

Or, better yet, try to poke holes in the hypothesis that I find more appealing, the idea that solar activity is the controlling influence on terrestrial climate by modulating cloudiness according to the suggestion of Svensmark. You can find assertions that the cosmic ray effect was disproven by observations of cloudiness after solar flare events (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/hea ... 33930.html), either a very clever attempt to exploit the scientific illiteracy of the general population or an astonishing lack of understanding by someone who is supposed to understand some rudimentary particle physics and astronomy. The effect proposed by Svensmark is caused by very high energy galactic cosmic rays, not the lower energy particles from solar flares. Tsk, tsk.

An article in New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651) dismisses the proposal by misrepresentations such as saying that cosmic rays are not a dominant source of cloud droplet nucleation. That was not asserted. The solar modulation of cloudiness seems to be on the order of a percent or two, a relatively minor contributor but significantly greater in its influence on climate than poor old CO2 (http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/en/ ... 3511992_en, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... 0d9e629583). The article also asserted a poor correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloudiness but the paper of Marsh and Svensmark (2000) appears to refute that.

It's certainly interesting to note that the sun has become as quiet as it has been in a hundred years and that darned, ol' climate just doesn't seem to be warming up like your dear computer models and Al Gore would have us believe.

So, go ahead. Try to engage in some scientific debate instead of the old, tired ad hominem attacks and patronizing condescension. I suspect you're capable of it.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker