Comments on: Sorry deniers, research finds (once again) that climate change is NOT caused by cosmic rays

By: Nylo

Nylo — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:39:04 +0000

“Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures”

That statement is false. We are near the end of cycle 23, which has been longer than usual. It is predicted to finish by 2009 or tomorrow, depending on who you ask at the NASA. The peak solar activity was around 2001, so before that, and for about 7 years, warming was expected. From 2001 solar activity has been declining and temperatures didn’t rise, in fact they average some cooling. The previous minimum-maximum-minimum were in 1985-1990-1996 respectively. Pick any temperature graphs you want, it shows an average rise-then drop for those years after proper smoothing. Overall, it rises, because of us being in the ENSO part of the cycle that brings warming (more El Niño than La Niña ocurrences). We are about to change to more La Niñas, by the way.

But even if the statement was true, I can also point you to some 30 years trend between 1940-1970 where temperatures didn’t quite follow CO2 either. And they did follow the sun.

By: Jim Clarke

Jim Clarke — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:12:42 +0000

Whatever you say David. Just a little friendly suggestion…when Realclimate starts passing out the Kool-Aid, don’t drink it and just play possum!

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:53:43 +0000

Jim Clarke — Your logic is deeply flawed when you writie “Therefore, cosmic rays do have an impact on cloud cover.”

The cosmic ray hypothesis has already been thoroughly discussed on RealClimate. The current paper is simply the latest nail in the coffin.

By: Jim Clarke

Jim Clarke — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:48:36 +0000

David,

If we applied your logic to both sides equally, this website would not exist. For example, the headline of this article states “…that climate change is not caused by cosmic rays.” Yet the ‘proof’ of this statement is a study that states in the abstract “…we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”

Last time I checked, less than 23% is not equal to zero. Therefore, cosmic rays do have an impact on cloud cover. Of course, the cosmic ray theory is not based on fluxes in the ll-year sunspot cycle, but on fluctuations in cosmic rays over much longer periods of time, so the value of this report in the debate is questionable. It would be the same as looking for the warming signal of CO2 in the last 10 years of global temperatures, and, upon finding little change, assert that increasing CO2 has no effect on global temperatures!

Now that I have demonstrated that Joe is uttering known untruths, will you demand that he shut down this website? I doubt it.

A principle administered selectively is tyranny!

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:36:01 +0000

Duscany — Sorry, but I don’t beleive that people have the right to utter known untruths. It is a form of lying.

Climate change is upon us. Deal with it responsibly.

By: Duscany

Duscany — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:04:06 +0000

It’s hard to trust climate change enthusiasts who scare school children with stories about starving polar bears and compare climate change skeptics with holocaust deniers.Why don’t climate change enthusiasts evey say, “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?” Well, they don’t defend your right to say it because when push comes to shove they don’t think you have any right to say it.