quote:

In a recent issue of the journal Astronomy and Geophysics (A&G), Henrik Svensmark coined a new term: 'cosmoclimatology' . I think 'cosmoclimatology' is a good and refreshing name for anything combining our cosmos with our climate. However, all other aspects of the article I found very disappointing. We have already covered most of these topics before, but the A&G articles provides us with some new aspects to discuss. Furthermore, Svensmark is the Director for Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, and therefore influential. He is also the co-author of a recent book with Nigel Calder that received some attention. Furthermore, a laboratory experiment of his also managed to make some headlines. It seems that solar forcing is one of the sceptics' last trenches in the debate about climate change. In my view the A&G paper therefore merits a comment as long as the same old and worn arguments resurface without discussing misgivings from the critics.

There are a number of issues which really make the A&G paper poor in my view. One is the neglect in addressing old criticisms of the hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) change our climate by modulating clouds (see here, here, & here). Svensmark is very vague on the lack of any trend in GCR or other solar proxies since 1952. I confronted him about this question on an European Geophysical Society (EGS) conference in Nice a few years ago, and have since published a paper also making the point. The A&G article makes selective references, without answering the serious criticism forwarded by Damon & Laut (2004), Laut (2003), or myself. To be fair, the critical paper by Kristjansson and Kristiansen (2000) is cited, albeit only to say that Svensmarks's own conclusion is "a counter-intuitive finding for some critics". The remaining treatment of critical aspects is completed in the A&G article without further qualifications other than the following passage (my emphasis):

Read the full article . . .

quote:

It is possible that GCRs do have an effect on climate through the modulation of clouds, but I don't think it is very strong. I also think that Svensmark's claims are wildly exaggerated, but most of my objection lies in the way the arguments have been presented in this A&G article.

quote:

Actually, the article is objective (because it's written by a real scientist), and that's why I posted it.

quote:

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

quote:

I know you find this hard to believe, but someone can have an opinion, express that opinion, and still be objective about the facts they use.

quote:

If you think the facts are something to dispute, let's hear it

quote:

Which is, of course, the logical fallacy you lean on the most, no offense.

quote:

But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements

quote:

So what truths are you disputing?

quote:

Don,

The article you linked seemed a bit vague in its details, so I purchased and read the actual study it's referring to. It would appear that the author of the article was being vague on purpose because he was giving the wrong impression of the study.

First of all, it really has nothing to do with Global Warming, just makes a passing mention of it's possible contribution to some anomalies regarding Global Warming data. In fact, the introduction of the study makes clear that in no way are they offering up an alternative theory to Global Warming:

quote:

[2] There seems little doubt that links exist between solar variability and terrestrial climate on century, decade, and shorter timescales [Reid, 2000]. For example, historical data strongly suggest that the Little Ice Age (from 1550 to 1850 A.D., when the mean temperature was colder by $1°C) was most likely caused by variability of the sun [Eddy, 1976]. The measured 0.1% level of the long-term total irradiance variations (i.e., solar direct effect on climate change) is generally considered to be too small (0.3 W/m2, globally averaged) to account for the observed changes in the Earth’s climate. Detailed fits of global and hemispherical temperatures since the mid 19th century with empirical models involving the enhanced greenhouse effect and solar variability require an amplification of irradiance effect by factor >2.5 to quantitatively explain the observed global temperature change

And in its conclusion makes sure to point out this is not an alternative theory but rather an adjunct one:

quote:

[33] The climate implications associated with the possible GCR-induced cloud changes are discussed. Since cloud is critical to Earth radiation budget, opposite systematic variations of low and high clouds associated with solar activity, if confirmed, may represent an important mechanism to amplify the effect of solar variability on Earth’s climate. The
decrease in GCR intensity during the last two decades might have led to a decrease in global mean low cloud amount and an increase in high cloud amount, which might have warmed the Earth’s surface and cooled the low troposphere.
We suggest that, the GCR-induced natural variability of global cloudiness, together with the greenhouse gases which warm both the surface and low troposphere, may reconcile the apparent differences in global mean temperature trends over the last two decades at Earth’s surface (rapidly warming, as recorded by thermometers) and in the lowest 8 km of atmosphere (little if any warming, as monitored by satellites and balloons).

And this is the point I've been trying to make. The existence of natural causes of climate change does not in any way conflict with man's contribution to the current changes.

The full study must be purchased to be read, but is available here:

Look for the July 2002 issue of "Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics"

The study is called:

"Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate"

Purchase it Here

quote:

Yu points out that indications of Earth's warming have coincided with decreased cosmic ray intensity during the 20th century. Such explanations for natural causes of global warming do not rule out human contributions to temperature change, but present the possibility that humans are not solely responsible for some of the observed temperature increases.

quote:

If that is the preliminary conclusions of the study to which you refer. You and I are closer then you think on our global warming POV.

quote:

6. Summary and Discussion
[31] The dependence of ultrafine production rate on
galactic cosmic ray ionization rate at different altitudes
has been investigated. Our primary studies indicate that an
increase in GCR ionization rate leads to an increase in CN
production in the lower troposphere (>680 mbar), but a
decrease in CN production in the upper troposphere (<440
mbar). In the lower troposphere the ionization rate is low
and the H2SO4 concentration is relatively high, the particle
formation is limited by ionization rate and an increase in
ionization rate leads to an increase in nucleation. In the
upper troposphere the ionization rate is very high and the
H2SO4 concentration is relatively low, the particle formation
is limited by H2SO4 concentration and an increase in
ionization rate inhibit the nucleation by reducing the life-
time of ion clusters. The average change of CN production
as the ionization rate increases is small in the middle
troposphere (440 –680 mbar).
[32] Since an increase in ultrafine production rate is likely
to increase the CCN abundance and cloudiness, we can
expect that the correlation between GCR changes and global
cloud cover (if any) should be positive for low cloud,
negative for high cloud, and weak for the middle cloud.
In addition to the reported positive correlation between
GCR variations and low cloudiness, our analyses of ISCCP
D2 IR cloud data further reveal that high cloudiness may be
anticorrelated with GCR variations if volcano and El Nino ˜
impacts are excluded. During a solar cycle the absolute
change of high and low cloud amounts is opposite in sign
but similar in magnitude ($1.5– 2%). The fluctuations of
middle cloud anomalies are small compared to that of low
clouds, and no obvious correlation exists between middle
cloudiness and GCR variations. Therefore the observed
different correlations between GCR variations and low,
middle, and high cloud anomalies seem to be consistent
with the predicted dependence of CN production on GCR
variations at different altitudes. Such a consistency suggests
that solar activity might actually affect global cloudiness by
modulating GCR fluxes. Meanwhile, considering the limit of cloud cover data available and uncertainties in the
volcano and El Nino impacts, we want to emphasize that our conclusions (especially with regard to the existence of
anticorrelation between high cloudiness and cosmic ray
variations) are not definitive.
[33] The climate implications associated with the possible
GCR-induced cloud changes are discussed. Since cloud is
critical to Earth radiation budget, opposite systematic var-
iations of low and high clouds associated with solar activity,
if confirmed, may represent an important mechanism to
amplify the effect of solar variability on Earth’s climate. The
decrease in GCR intensity during the last two decades might
have led to a decrease in global mean low cloud amount and
an increase in high cloud amount, which might have
warmed the Earth’s surface and cooled the low troposphere.
We suggest that, the GCR-induced natural variability of
global cloudiness, together with the greenhouse gases which
warm both the surface and low troposphere, may reconcile the apparent differences in global mean temperature trends
over the last two decades at Earth’s surface (rapidly warm-
ing, as recorded by thermometers) and in the lowest 8 km of
atmosphere (little if any warming, as monitored by satellites
and balloons).
[34] While this study provides additional evidence for the
inferred correlation between variations in global cloud
properties and the solar-modulated GCR fluxes, much more
work is needed to understand how and how much the GCR
variations will affect the CCN abundance and cloud proper-
ties. Laboratory and field measurements, as well as theo-
retical studies are needed to validate the predicted
dependent-behaviors of nucleation on ionization rates at
different altitudes, to investigate the effect of GCR varia-
tions on CCN abundance, and to clarify the complex
microphysics of aerosol/cloud interactions. The current
analyses of GCR-cloud correlations are limited by the
uncertainties associated with the cloud data and short
periods of cloud data available. Improved cloud cover data
covering longer time periods will be very useful in studying
GCR-cloud connections.
[35] In addition to their possible influence on particle
nucleation rate, CN and CCN abundance, GCR variations
may also affect global electric circuit and electroscavenging
[e.g., Tinsley, 2000, 2001] that will change cloud properties.
On the other hand, the UV-induced changes in stratospheric
ozone and heating rate alter the atmospheric circulation,
energy transport and the lower atmosphere temperature
[e.g., Haigh, 1996, 1999; Shindell et al., 1999] and thus
may also influence the cloud properties. It is important to
understand the relative contributions of different mecha-
nisms (hypotheses) to the natural variability of the cloud
properties under different atmospheric conditions (or at
different altitudes/latitudes).

quote:

I've always said that Man isn't the exclusive contributor to Global Warming, and no study has ever make that claim either.

quote:

Do I see another truce boiling up?

quote:

If you feel like geeking out, here's the entire conclusion section of the study (sorry if it's sloppy, didn't feel like formatting it):

quote:

O baby... That gets me HOT. You mind if I share it with my wife.