Does this figure mean that man is varying CO2 according to the sunspot cycle since CO2 changes are supposedly man made? If the method is indeed applicable, then that would have to be the conclusion.
Posted on 07/02/2006 8:35:11 AM PDT by maine-iac7
Editor's note: Global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science...
The global mean temperature is never constant, and it has no choice but to increase or decrease--both of which it does on all known time scales. That this quantity has increased about 0.6ºC (or about 1ºF) over the past century is likely. A relevant question is whether this is anything to be concerned about....
It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are "record breakers" or even whether current temperatures are "unprecedented." All that matters is that the change over the past century has been small....
Kyoto, itself, will have no discernable impact on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change...
The scientific community is committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible...
The main victims of any proactive policies are likely to be consumers, and they have little concentrated influence. As usual, they have long been co-opted by organizations like Consumers Union that now actively support Kyoto.
(Excerpt) Read more at heartland.org ...
You still don't get it, blinded as you are by ideological pre-conceptions.
I don't think Gore can stop co2 emissions even as President. What's he going to do - stop the use of cars, shut down the factories, limit the birth rate by fiat, slaughter the poor of the third world?
All he might be able to do is increase access to abortion, raise mileage standards, distribute condoms - a few things like that. Good things, but very far from enough, and whose effect will most likely be to weaken us and not do anything else.
You're sick.
I don't like abortion, petronski, but it's preferable to the alternatives in my view - those being overpopulation, starvation, war, pestilence. We'll never agree on that...but it doesn't make me sick to hold such views. It just means tha t you and I differ seriously.
i didn't make that approach to you because i didn't think it worthwhile. you're
terminalmore informed.
There that is closer to the reality.
Just in the interest of good science, and dissenting opinion necessary to the discovery of truth we should take a look at those who have displayed the gumption to actually review Mann's IPCC work firing off the questions about the methodology used to produce the Hockey Stick.
The M&M project, Replication Analysis of the et al. Hockey Stick
I find it interesting you didn't bother to provide a like link to counterpoint commentary to the Mann justifications, the ClimateAudit site. which allows a more robust commentary review in dissent as well as support regarding Mann's Hockey Stick defense. Just for completeness.
Don't have the POWER. Right! That's what separates me from him. How many times do I have to say it before you get it?
Weird comment, as apparently you think that advocating the "stopping of garbage co2" is not empowering creeps like Gore, who need your support to dictate their political 'solutions'.
In effect, you are an 'enabler'. Admit it.
You still don't get it, blinded as you are by ideological pre-conceptions.
I see a grab for power, cloaked in 'garbage co2' reasoning. 'Reasoning' that you ideologically support.
I don't think Gore can stop co2 emissions even as President. What's he going to do - stop the use of cars, shut down the factories, limit the birth rate by fiat, slaughter the poor of the third world? All he might be able to do is increase access to abortion, raise mileage standards, distribute condoms - a few things like that.
Good things, but very far from enough, and whose effect will most likely be to weaken us and not do anything else.
There you go again with the 'bold' comment that in effect outs your true agenda. --- Thanks.
But I'll try again.
If the environment was the only issue I'd probably vote for Gore. I'd have reservations because I don't think the greens have a coherent economic alternative or the guts to make hard choices but I'd give it a try because I think an alternative to our present course is a must.
But the environment isn't the only issue. Foreign policy is dominant and I didn't vote for Gore because of it, would never vote for Gore because of it, because too many of his supporters hate this country, hate our way of life and are blinded to the sins and failings of our opponents because of those hatreds.
If that sound like Christopher Hitchens maybe I'm copying something he wrote. Could be...although not deliberately.
I don't think Gore can stop co2 emissions even as President. What's he going to do - stop the use of cars, shut down the factories, limit the birth rate by fiat, slaughter the poor of the third world? All he might be able to do is increase access to abortion, raise mileage standards, distribute condoms - a few things like that.
Good things, but very far from enough, and whose effect will most likely be to weaken us and not do anything else.
There you go again with the 'bold' comment that in effect outs your true agenda. --- Thanks.
You're sure I have a hidden agenda...that I'm secretly - what?
You and the Gores of this world are convinced y'all have the power to dictate government solutions for "all of us", --- and that these are "-- Good things, but very far from enough --".
Sure it does.
Ok, reading it now, but I don't understand how they can apply normalization since the temperature is not a vector. Figure 5 really spills the beans, they basically want the proxy data (in green) to match up to the instrumental record (in red). Mann's PCA did that and produced the hockey stick. Basically Mann's technique was to normalize the proxy data to make it fit the instrumental record, and then apply the same normalization to the entire proxy record (which smooths it, lowers the average, and produces the hockey stick).
As I said I can't help you. I don't have the mathematical or phsyical knowledge. I only suggest that, when you argue it out with them, you stick to mathematics and physics, and not constantly look for evidence that they "spilled the beans".
Another alternative would be to go through it with a reputable mathematical physicist, mathematician, or statistician...if you know any.
Well, it's not a physics or math argument really. Spilling the beans is my way of saying how I understand their goal in using the PCA technique. It's probably not technically incorrect, but the assumption in Fig 5 is obvious, they want proxy data to match the instrumental record. They found that data: bristlecone pine (from climateaudit website). Now I have to figure out two problems: whether they applied the PCA method correctly (likely) and whether it is correct to "pull" a temperature signal from noisy, low resolution proxy data using PCA (doubtful). The reason I say doubtful is there are more direct ways to determine the temperature component of a proxy (such as compensating for rainfall). The PCA method ignores that extra information. That's not a fatal flaw but it does raise some questions about its applicability.
Oh,oh... you need help.
Does this figure mean that man is varying CO2 according to the sunspot cycle since CO2 changes are supposedly man made? If the method is indeed applicable, then that would have to be the conclusion.
It doesn't do any good asking me. I have even less expertise than you. Get real help. Go to a university if you have to.
It fits well into studies on the effect of Solar Activity with respect to cloud cover and the resultant incidence on global temperatures.
'Earthshine' Linked to Solar Cycle, Climate Change
By Robert Roy Britt; 18 April 2001
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/earth_shine_010417.htmlSun's effect on climate
The new albedo measurements are based on 70 nights of observations during 1994-95 and another 200 that began in 1998 and are ongoing. The data are averaged over long periods of time to account for changes caused by local weather, seasonal snow cover and other factors.
The researchers say the data provide hints that Earth's albedo has decreased 2.5 percent during the past five years, as the Sun's magnetic activity has climbed from solar minimum to maximum. If accurate, this finding supports a hypothesis that the Sun's magnetic field plays an indirect role in Earth's climate.
Theory Says Climate Change Depends On Solar Wind/Cosmic Rays
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html
Cosmic rays may be another extraterrestrial influence at work, writes Henrik Svensmark in a paper to appear in the Nov. 30 issue of Physical Review Letters. He and Eigil Friis-Christensen, who both work at the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen, published the initial work last year in a smaller-circulation journal.
Dr. Svensmark presents data from satellites that have taken pictures of Earth's cloud cover for the past 20 years. He noticed that the average amount of cloud cover could vary by 3 to 4 percent from year to year. The cloud changes matched changes in the 11-year cycle of the sun; so, Dr. Svensmark concluded, something related to the sun must be affecting Earth's climate.
He believes that the solar wind, a wave of charged particles from the sun, interacts with cosmic rays as they approach Earth. How many cosmic rays get through the solar wind determines how many clouds form, he suggests. The amount of cloud cover then determines how hot or cold the planet is.
"There are so many things that connect so well, it's such a beautiful agreement," said Dr. Svensmark.
See also:
Conclusions of the Workshop on Ion--Aerosol--Cloud Interactions, CERN, 18--20 April 2001 (view: PDF)
A.W. Wolfendale
The lagging CO2 cycle falls right in line with prior studies that CO2 concentration is more an effect of change in global temperature and temperature's effect on earth's ecosystems than it is a cause of such changes.
Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
- "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature.
"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."
***
"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."
Exactly. Sunspots and the sun's magnetic field decrease, so cosmic rays increase causing ionization and warm topped clouds and cooling. Then the warming causes the oceans to decrease their normal uptake of CO2 (mainly due to surface warming and stratification). There's lots of other variables to consider like the weather, but that part is simple and all short term.
Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 27 October 2004
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html
Until recently, the solar component has been investigated principally in regard solar brightness and direct radiant heating with little research done on the effects of Gamma Ray and other ionization effects on cloud cover.
Even though brightness tends to correlate with solar activity it has never been enough change in brightness to directly account for changes in Climate. The ion/cloud interactions influenced by the solar magnetic field changes associated with solar activity generally provide a mechanism that has a much stronger influence on global temperatures through changes in earths albedo.
Just so you know I haven't forgotten about you. I am waiting for an email back from the math PhD who I asked to look at this. I gave him links to realclimate and climateaudit pages on the hockey stick along with junkscience's global warming proxies web page.
I've forgotten the question you were inquiring about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.