Now that Svensmark's cosmic ray theory has been disproven, are GW deniers done?

Question

It's not volcanoes. It's not water vapor. It's not carbonation in soda pop.

And it's not the sun or cosmic rays, either:

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

"Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant [cosmic ray] hypothesis."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Do GW deniers have any alternative explanations left?

Nice try, 3DM.

Henrik Svensmark et al. have argued that solar variations modulate the cosmic ray signal seen at the earth and that this would affect cloud formation and hence climate.

Lockwood's study shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Svensmark's hypothesis was that increased SOLAR activity blocks GALACTIC cosmic rays. Lockwood refuted the hypothesis exactly.

Here's the entire paper, by the way:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

You know it's really ironic that 3DM continues to attack me and my science background while himself making the same mistakes he accuses me of. Nowhere in Lockwood's paper are solar cosmic rays even mentioned, because they're irrelevant to the hypothesis being discussed!

Just goes to show like I always say, personal attacks are a sure sign of a poor argument.

I gotta give 3DM a little credit though - if you don't actually check what he's saying, it SOUNDS like a good argument (apparently the 3 people who gave him a thumbs-up didn't factcheck him).

Most global warming denier arguments simply sound stupid, so I guess sounding like you know what you're talking about (particularly since you don't) is worth something. Isn't it?

Hmm.....nah.

Chuda - try reading past the introduction next time. Or at least read the whole introduction. Like this part:

"Rather, the aim of the present paper is to study data from the last 40 years in some detail in order to see if solar variations could have played any role in observed present-day global warming."

Conclusion: "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

Answer 1

hmm and I thought he had been debunked long ago.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

Answer 2

I’ve just read the paper and found this comment…

“The third proposed mechanism is considerably different from the other two—it has been suggested that air ions generated by cosmic rays modulate the production of clouds (Svensmark 2007). This mechanism (Carslaw et al. 2002) has been highly controversial and the data series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect solar cycle variations in cloud cover; however, recent observations of short-lived (lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006).”

Now, perhaps I’m a bit thick, but that doesn’t look like “Svensmark's cosmic ray theory has been disproven” to me. That seems to say that while the data series has been too short to be sure, events indicate there may indeed be an effect.

In other words, as with most things in climate science, more study is required.

Oh, and by the way, Svensmark’s theory is *not* the only reason I’m sceptical of the AGW bandwagon. In fact, this question is a perfect example of why I remain sceptical. Generally, the public can’t be bothered to actually read the genuine science themselves and simply believe what they are told. The GWAs, such as yourself, bank on this reality and make bold statements of fact, as you have done, knowing that the vast majority of the public will fall for it.

A perfect example of this is Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts. Many people on here have asked what the money raised will be used for. Will it be used to try and combat “catastrophic” global warming? Nope. It’s being used to fund a three-year propaganda campaign, headed by; you guessed it, Al Gore. So the money won’t be used to mitigate global warming, just a publicity drive to con more people onto the bandwagon.

Does anyone else smell a rat?

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

:::EDIT:::

In response to dana’s response to me.

Well, yes, the paper does indeed conclude that, as you correctly quoted, the “rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability”.

But that’s *not the question you asked*!

Based on your response to me, you now appear to think that you asked:

“Now that the theory that the Sun is causing global warming has been disproven, are GW deniers done?”

Allow me to remind you what your question actually was:

“Now that Svensmark's cosmic ray theory has been disproven, are GW deniers done?”

And the quote I cited above seems to show that this is not the case. Let’s be clear, it by no means suggests that Svensmark’s theory is correct either. What it seems to be saying is that there’s not enough data, so the jury is still out on the issue.

But it certainly *does not* disprove his theory. So the answer to your original question is: no.

Also, if Lockwood, et al, has failed to disprove Svensmark’s theory, then doesn’t that allow for the possibility that he may be correct? And if so the Sun may *still* be a contributing factor, couldn’t it?

Answer 3

I'll wait for Svensmark's response and criticism of their study. He and other scientists have been studying the concept for quite a while.There have been many studies that show very good correlation over thousands of years. I noticed that they were looking at daily sunspot numbers instead of solar cycle length. That could be a problem.

Answer 4

dana, you got pwned by 3DM. Seriously, there are scientific studies disproving just about anything. Darwin's theory, the Big Bang. Also, there are phony scientific studies that "prove" that the grand canyon was carved out by Noah's flood. One scientific study can hardly be deemed all-inclusive and the gospel truth. Do you know how many times quantum theory has been revised? Evolution theory? Cell theory? Any other scientific theory?

Answer 5

They'll probably come up with some other stupid theory that makes no sense and just continue living in their own little world. Trust me, in '08, things will change for the better of the environment.

Answer 6

In my opinion, both sides are politicizing the issue more than they should, but what's really reprehensible is that the anti-environmentalists are using their refusal to believe in global warming as an excuse to refuse to change any of their irresponsible and planet-harming ways. Whether you believe in global warming or not should be virtually irrelevant. There are other indisputable reasons why we need to reduce emissions. Here in Phoenix, and in other major metropolitan areas, we frequently have ozone advisories, warning even healthy active adults to stay inside or minimize their outdoor activities. In case you don't know, most ozone comes from car exhaust fumes, power plants and other man-made sources of nitrous oxides. Will people have to start dropping dead in the streets before the extremists recognize that unhealthy air is a bad thing?

Wow, two thumbs down? That must mean some people are proud to proclaim themselves to be anti-environmentalists, because I consciously avoided using any political labels. That's truly sad. How can anyone think it's wrong to care about the planet or the air we breathe?

Answer 7

Right with you CZ - unfortunately with anything there is a need to deal with ignorance. Watch for a slow shift in rhetoric from GW denial to "lifestyle preservation" - example: "I need the cargo space of an SUV".

Can someone explain how energy efficiency is not conservative?

Answer 8

Global warming has happened before. Why do receding glaciers expose human artifacts in the Andes Mountains, the Alps, and Greenland?

What makes you think it has to be CO2?

Answer 9

The IPCC knows more about ignoring data it doesn't like. Never mind core sample evidence, and the Little Ice Age that the Chicken Littles run away from.

Energy effiency is important to me because it saves me money not because hypocrites like Gore and Suzuki tell me to.

Answer 10

Only someone as unschooled in scientific method as you could claim ,"Svensmark's cosmic ray theory has been disproven."

If one study allegedly failing to support is all that it takes to "disprove" a "theory", then AGW has already been "disproven".

Someone with an alleged Master's in astrophysics would have been able to realize that Lockwood's work does NOT even examine the specifics of Svensmark's HYPOTHESIS. That's why he lets the BBC correspondent make the specious claim of an apparent "fatal nail" in the coffin. They are counting on the general lack of critical analysis skills with folk such as you. Do YOU know what the hypothesis is? Don't worry I'll post a link so that you can "catch up"...

Lockwood's work examines cosmic rays as a function of solar output, ie, SOLAR cosmic rays. Svensmark's hypothesis deals with GALACTIC cosmic rays - a not so subtle difference that SHOULDN'T evade someone with an advanced astrophysics degree.

Galactic cosmic rays are much more present than solar cosmic rays, which technically aren't even "cosmic" rays. It's the lower energy galactic rays that create the cloud ionization effect. Where the Sun comes in - with regards to the hypothesis - is NOT solar output, but rather fluctuations in solar wind and magnetosphere that end up deflecting galactic rays, thereby decreasing cloud formation, and subsequently increasing temperature.

So, unless you can show me where Lockwood's study was analyzing fluctuations in solar wind and Earth/Sun magnetosphere, then all you've done is demonstrate, once again, the shoddy scientific foundation of Global Warming Alarmism.

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://www.sciencebits.com/SkyResults
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/other/global-warming-and-cosmic-radiation

Edit:
HOOBOY! Digging yourself a big enough hole for you AND Lockwood, aren't we?

First, let's get to straight to the heart of Svensmark's hypothesis. Cosmic rays in the form of MUONS form molecular clusters that lead to the formation of condensation nuclei (building blocks of clouds). There is a separate hypothesis that suggests the possibility that solar winds "sweep" these muons from the upper atmosphere, decreasing condensation nuclei and hence, albedo. Any other conjecture is totally up to other scientists.

Second, thank you for the link to Lockwood's paper, it makes critical analysis that much easier. As I stated earlier, the BBC article suggests solar output findings reinforce Lockwood's supposition that Svensmark is disproved. Nowhere did it discuss solar forces disrupting galactic cosmic rays, misleading the reader. Going off your original source and that correspondant's conclusion, it IS unfounded.

But at least Lockwood addresses the (solar)magnetosphere, which by itself doesn't draw a complete picture of solar forces that deflect cosmic particles. As I pointed out, you need to also address solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere - related to but not necessarily proportional to solar (magnetic) flux. You say that Lockwood EXACTLY refuted Svensmark...

...we'll see:

If you know your particles like every good physicist should, you probably have a little pit in your stomach (assuming you read Lockwood's paper.) As stated previously, muons are essentially a type of heavy electron. The cosmic ray measurement performed by Lockwood consisted of Be-10 isotope measurement, formed by high energy proton collision with O, N, and Ar, as stated correctly in the paper...except he only mentioned "cosmic rays" instead of the actual particle. Of interest is that the Beryllium isotope occurs with greater frequency in galactic cosmic radiation as opposed to solar radiation - but it's still not a muon. Measurement was also made of high-energy neutrons (Climax detector)...but still not a muon.

So, Lockwood didn't measure muons at all. Hmmm. How "EXACT" is that? Well, he covered his butt by saying he wasn't going to discuss the mechanism - too bad, since his mechanism components WERE NOT MEASURED. It is of particular note that Svensmark's work was empirical - demonstrating actual cosmic muons creating cloud nuclei - not some absurd computer model. Check it out in the link above.

That leaves us with the incomplete solar forces which have some merit. First, Lockwood didn't take into account the mass difference between muons and the Be-10 and neutrons measured. The neutron weighs 9 times more than the muon, the Be-10 is about 90 times. If the particles were present in equal number, which they aren't, that would still leave the muons more susceptible to solar forces due to the significantly lower speeds. In so many ways, this is not an apples and apples comparison. It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like apples and poodles.

That's not to say that Lockwood can't "disprove" Svensmark's second conclusion. In all fairness, Svensmark has not completed work supporting his second hypothesis with empirical data. But then again, neither have these global warming predictions...

And Dana, it's not a personal attack if I point out obvious deficiencies in the your "science". You incorrectly interpreted Svensmark's hypothesis. You played fast and loose, as did Lockwood, with what constitutes a cosmic ray, and its relevance to the hypothesis it allegedly refutes. As an astrophysicist, you have no excuse. I didn't major in physics, but I know better. And as far as my claims about what Lockwood's work showed, I qualified my statement with a challenge to you to provide the actual Lockwood paper, which to your credit you did. Unfortunately, Lockwood DID NOT disprove Svensmark; he DID blur the lines between solar and galactic rays; he DID NOT completely address all solar forces that affect cosmic radiation and the relative strength of those forces according to the particle in question.

Now, if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, PLEASE show me specifically where I'm wrong. (You can start with how muons can form Be-10)