Feel free to leave a comment
View the discussion thread.
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 2006-06-16 16:34
Nice site. Keep it going.
Tom (not verified)
Thu, 2006-07-27 16:40
Hi, great site and info, but the text runs off the screen requiring a constant readjusting by way of the horizontal slide bar. Is it possible to reformat your articles so that they better fit the screen? You appear to have important information which needs to get out to a bunch of folks, but many may not want to deal with the inconvenience of having to continually readjust their screens.
Peter Yogman (not verified)
Sun, 2007-04-22 02:32
I have seen several articles which claim a breakdown in late 20th century connection between cosmic rays and solar proxies with temperature. In addition they claim the solar proxy data was incorrect (eg. eos. vol 85 No. 39 sept. 28, 2004.)(link at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/) Even Veizer's article at Geoscience Canada Vol. 32 No. 1 seems to indicate a recent breakdown in the relationship. The claim made by critics is that the very recent temperature rises are therefore due to co2. Do we have updated data that restores the connection. You seem to say (though it is not clear to me) that there is some difference in cosmic rays of different energy levels. Could you please help clarify the most recent data and what it means for the connection over the last 15 years or so.
Thank you for your excellent work.
Sun, 2007-04-22 02:53
Just in case the previous didn't post since I was not registered here is my question repeated.
I have seen several articles which claim a breakdown in late 20th century connection between cosmic rays and solar proxies with temperature. In addition they claim the solar proxy data was incorrect (eg. eos. vol 85 No. 39 sept. 28, 2004.)(link at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/) Even Veizer's article at Geoscience Canada Vol. 32 No. 1 seems to indicate a recent breakdown in the relationship. The claim made by critics is that the very recent temperature rises are therefore due to co2. Do we have updated data that restores the connection? You seem to say (though it is not clear to me) that there is some difference in cosmic rays of different energy levels. Could you please help clarify the most recent data and what it means for the connection over the last 15 years or so.
Sun, 2007-04-22 10:42
The question you raised is important and not new. Given that it was asked many times, I realize that there is no point to avoid writing something serious (and technical) to show that it is not a major problem as I see it. So in fact, I started doing so (though given that I am very busy this semester, it may take a few weeks).
In short (very short):
- The sun's activity appears to have increased to about 1950, slightly decreased to the 1970's and somewhat increased until the mid 1990's. It is not clear whether the CRF increased more in the second period than the decreased after the middle of the century. (It depends on the energy and record used). This behavior should give rise to large warming, moderate cooling, moderate warming.
- Given Earth's large heat capacity, the climate's response is low pass filtered. Thus, the temperature at 2000 should be higher than the temperature in 1950 even if the increase from the 1970's is smaller than in 1950 (since the high activity of the 1990's comes after 5 decades of much higher activity than the 5 decades preceding the 1940's).
- Some of the warming from the 1970's can be anthropogenic. I never thought otherwise. A 50 ppm increase is about 1 W/m^2. For a sensitivity of 1 to 1.5 deg/(W/m2), damped to say half of it over the several decade time scale, CO2 should have contributed about a 0.15 deg increase.
Sun, 2007-04-22 03:20
Here is another critical article on the crf climate model. Do you have any comments on the critique? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
Yevgeny (not verified)
Mon, 2007-11-26 09:37
Unfortunately, your nice website doesn't work with Internet Explorer 7. It shows only the title and nothing else. Only now that I opened Netscape I can see it. Hope you can fix it.
Sun, 2008-11-30 20:43
Not to take up the argument of existence or not of the paranormal -- but your argument seems to assume it's possible to prove a negative, which, strictly speaking, isn't logical. If I understand you, you also accept as a premise the point you are attempting to make.
But I understand you are a scientliist, not a philosopher. (Also, the James Randi prize for proof of the paranormal depends on his own determination of what constitutes "proof." He has already decided, a priori, that no such proof can exist. Hence, no possibility of anyone receiving the prize, regardless of what evidence they present.)
Mon, 2010-01-11 10:48
The paper by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner 'Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics' (arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph] 4 Mar 2009) suggests that the some of the basic assumptions underlying the Greenhouse Theory, sorry, Hypothesis, are fundamentally wrong as they are at odds with the fundamental laws of physics, particularly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I find some of this paper somewhat confused and unclear and would appreciate your take on this paper.
I do concur very much with their statement that modelling of highly non-linear quasi-choatic systems is far beyond our current analytical and computational capabilities, and to pretend otherwise is deceitful, misleading and dishonest.
Secondly, I find it difficult to reconcile what I understand of quantum mechanics and the absorption/emission of radiation by CO2 (or any other molecule), with the supposedly accepted wisdom that C02 can absorb any and all IR radiation.
As I understand it, CO2 can absorb radiation at only specific wavelengths, and in the IR range this is absorbed as vibrational energy. Since temperature is a measure of translational energy, not vibrational energy (at least for gases), how does this absorption affect temperature? Or is there some non-quantum i.e. classical principle at work here?
I cannot find anywhere a discussion of the fundamental physics on which any climate science must ultmately rest. Maybe you could fill that void.
Dennis (not verified)
Sat, 2010-08-21 00:30
Very interesting site very informative.
I like this format very much, spiral notebook style.
But what software is used in its design?
Thanks in advance
Sat, 2012-01-07 12:53
Drupal is the open source content management system I use, and on their site drupal.org you can find it and many themes. When I upgraded to drupal 7 from 6, I switched to another one.
Sat, 2011-07-16 01:34
Surprised to see in your series on global warming that you simply ignore many of the signatures that climate scientists have pointed to that it is anthropogenic. E.g., warming of the lower atmosphere, cooling of the upper atmosphere, decreased radiation out to space and increased back to earth in exactly the frequencies one would expect for anthropogenic GHG's, greater warming at night than during the day, and others. The case does not rest only on the two arguments you cite. You should know better than that.
Peter Hannan (not verified)
Tue, 2012-12-04 13:08
Hi Nir, I've read many of your scientific articles, and like your blog a lot. I'm British and live in Mexico, and have a Jewish friendhere to whom I've recommended your articles and blog. However, he speaks Spanish, Russian and Hebrew, and not much English. Do you have stuff in Hebrew? If you do, send a link.
Thu, 2012-12-13 11:44
here is a hebrew article summarizing my scientific opinion on global warming.
Copyright (c) Nir Shaviv / No reposting of whole articles without permission!