|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 20:59:18 GMT 1
Did you actually listen to all of the words he spoke on the video?
He said that what he was doing was to help resolve the uncertainty as stated in the IPCC reports - ie he is as mainstream IPCC climate scientist as most of the other several hundred scientists whose work was referenced in the IPCC reports.
Sometimes it seems that you define as anti-IPCC as anyone who you agree with and IPCC mainstream as anyone you disagree with. Try listening to the actual words rather than your prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 0:50:43 GMT 1
Jasper Kirkby and Henrik Svensmark are not IPCC hacks. In fact they have been denigrated by IPCC partisans for suggesting cosmic ray variation needs to be considered as part of climate variability. Your smart Alec pals at realclimate described their work as "Cosmoclimatology – tired old arguments in new clothes." Only when CERN took up their proposed cloud experiment did the IPCC start showing some respect to these scientists. I'm glad to have been able to introduce you to some REAL climate science for a change, Louise, instead of your usual diet of moralising, ideology, scare-mongering and character assassination. From the account of Andrew Orlowski of the Climate Conference which has just taken place in Downing College Cambridge. www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/"Henrik Svensmark, who offered the most compelling alternative to the IPCC orthodoxy, was among those who gave a presentation. The audience was evenly split, and the IPCC orthodox view took up perhaps two thirds of the day."
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 15:09:57 GMT 1
Jasper Kirkby and Henrik Svensmark are not IPCC hacks. I can find no reference or information regarding Henrik Svensmark's involvement in the CERN project being run by Jasper Kirkby. - please supply a link for this One of the aims of the CLOUD project is to investigate Svenmark's theories and to help to refine the GCMs as used by scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports. You seem to think that all scientists fall strongly into either IPCC or non-IPCC camps. I think that scientists' work stands or falls on its own merits. Even the attempt by 'the Team' to keep certain peoples' work out of the IPCC reports, as it wasn't wholly supportive of AGW, failed. The very fact that this CLOUD work is being funded at CERN (that can't be cheap) demonstrates that science isn't as partisan as you believe.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 15:29:33 GMT 1
Find the links about the connection between Kirkby and Svensmark for yourself, Louise. If you had any awareness of climate debates over the last few years you would already know about it. That you don't speaks volumes for the quality of your understanding.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 15:32:19 GMT 1
Find the links about the connection between Kirkby and Svensmark for yourself, Louise. If you had any awareness of climate debates over the last few years you would already know about it. That you don't speaks volumes for the quality of your understanding. I looked - they don't exist other than Kikby is testing Svensmark's theories. Svensmark himself does not appear to be part of the CERN project team.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 15:36:23 GMT 1
I never claimed Svensmark was part of the CERN "team", Louise. I have no idea what his relationship to the CERN "team" is.
He is certainly the one most noted for promoting the idea of GCR seeding clouds. Good ideas spread like wildfire, you know. Fortunately for him someone was willing to back the "good idea" with the opportunity to conduct an experiment to test it.
What a novel concept!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 15:53:22 GMT 1
I have discovered why you are so ignorant of Svensmark, Louise.
He doesn't get a mention in the Smugblog Directory, on SourceWatch or at the Carbon Brief. He must be above suspicion!
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 15:57:12 GMT 1
He also isn't mentioned much in Google if you include the word CERN (which is what I did).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 16:04:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 16:11:32 GMT 1
Ever heard of Nigel Calder, Louise? calderup.wordpress.com/Accelerator results on cloud nucleation15/05/2011 Aarhus beats Geneva While the world waits for the report due soon from the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, as noted in my previous post, a team working in Denmark has published the results of a cheaper and quicker experiment done last year with a particle accelerator at the University of Aarhus. They fully confirm the support for the Svensmark hypothesis (that cosmic rays help to make clouds) which came from earlier Danish experiments using natural cosmic rays and radioactive sources of ionizing gamma rays.The paper, published on 12 May 2011, is by M.B. Enghoff, J. O. Pepke Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark, “Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam,” Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L09805, doi:10.1029/2011GL047036.
The abstract is available here: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml
Press releases from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and the University of Aarhus are expected very soon and will be added here when available in English.
In Danish see, from DTU: science.au.dk/nyheder-og-arrangementer/nyhed/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/
Meanwhile, the following article in English is on the website of the Institute of Physics (London): physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45982
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 18, 2011 18:32:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 18, 2011 18:36:06 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 18, 2011 18:45:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 19, 2011 10:24:42 GMT 1
Always attacking the messenger, Louise. I bet you never even read Wegman's original congressional Report in 2006 on a portion of which the supposedly "plagiarised" paper was based. I did, some years ago. Wegman DEMONSTRATED the co-authorship and pal review network of the handful of top IPCC collaborators as the basis of the groupthink that typifies the alarmist IPCC network. Just a few like-minded politically motivated "palaeo-climatologists" instead of the IPCC's proclaimed "thousands of independent scientists" - a nice little clique in other words. Wegman did a highly detailed analysis of his OWN rather dispersed network of co-authorship and compared it to that of the IPCC palaeoclimatologists centred on Michael Mann which proved to be incredibly incestuous. Read this paper which presents Prof Wegman's Congressional testimony if you want to know what HE SAID and the research he adduced to back up his claims about IPCC cliques. republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdfWegman demonstrated via a block matrix diagram the clustering of co-authorship in the field of discredited IPCC palaeo-climatology Figure 5.2: This is a matrix indicating the nine blocks of the 43 investigators. The black squares indicate that there is a co-author relationship. Discussion: The block (cluster) structure is very clear. Michael Mann is a co-author with every one of the other 42. The black squares on the diagonal indicate that the investigators work closely within their group, but not so extensively outside of their group. The occasional off diagonal boxes indicate that some investigators have joint papers with investigators outside of their immediate group. The order of the authors on the vertical and horizontal axes is the same. Unfortunately, there is overprinting on the horizontal so that individual authors are not readable. However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique. www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdfI know Louise won't read the report that identifies the corrupt clique she so lurves, But for anyone interested in the actualité the two pdfs above will make interesting and informative reading. None of the named palaeo co-authors have denied their relationships. They cannot - it's all on the record! No-one has disproved they are a like-minded clique. Mann's "Hockeystick" is now totally discredited and McIntyre and McKitrick's critique has been and continues to be vindicated. Try again, dear, when you have acquainted yourself with the Congressional Report which is the source of all the alarmist angst and venom against Wegman. The plagiarism and peer review jibes are just payback from the IPCC loyalists for Wegman's revelation of the corruption at the heart of the IPCC
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 19, 2011 10:44:41 GMT 1
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick Financial Post Wednesday, August 23, 2006 The recently released final report of a panel of three independent statisticians, chaired by an eminent statistics professor, Edward Wegman, chairman of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee on theoretical and applied statistics, has resoundingly upheld criticisms of the famous "hockey stick" graph of Michael Mann and associates. The Wegman report, which was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives energy and commerce committee in July, stated that our published criticisms of Mann's methodology were "valid and compelling," and concluded that "Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis." This comes on the heels of an earlier report in June by a National Research Council (NRC) panel chaired by Gerald North, of Texas A&M University, which also endorsed specific criticisms of Mann's methodology and which concluded that no statistical confidence could be placed in his claims that temperatures in the 1990s exceeded those in the medieval warm period. Wegman also criticized the lack of independence in paleoclimate science at multiple levels - in the selection of proxies, in the reviewing of articles and in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process itself. In his testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he sarcastically questioned Mann's citation of his own articles or articles by his students as supposedly "independent" verification of his results. Given the importance that the IPCC and others have placed on historical temperature reconstructions, Wegman recommended that qualified statisticians be involved in the analysis and that the work be reviewed by truly independent experts.... More here www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf
|
|