|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 14, 2011 0:50:34 GMT 1
Of course, what we have now that they didn't have then is computer models, which allow us to compute the net effect when there are many different processes and feedback loops operating. After all, met office weather computations offer some predictive power (i'll admit that's not the strongest argument ever made for the utility of large-scale computer models in climatology!).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 14, 2011 1:04:02 GMT 1
Research like this at CERN (just like the ever greater insights into the Carbon cycle sources and sinks) is chipping away at the priority accorded by politically-motivated alarmists to the simplistic CO2-induced "Enhanced Greenhouse" effect.
One day, perhaps, STA will be able to concede that the "Greenhouse Effect", "climate sensitivity" and "tipping points" as currently explained by Orthodoxy, are wrong. One day she may concede that there has been the grossest discrimination by the IPCC dominant clique and their running dogs in journals and so-called "learned" societies against alternative explanations of observations and that "citations" etc mean sod all.
I'm still interested in her continuing support for alarmist claims that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 100 times (or even a mere 7 times) greater than natural ones. These have to be based on gross twisting of the actual known data.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 15, 2011 13:48:33 GMT 1
HAVE to be? How nice to be that certain, without any evidence whatsoever! It just HAS to be untrue, because M says so!
shame that the geologists and oceanographers and all those geezers who know what they are talking about don't agree with M. What a wonderful conspiracy we must have, if the climate alarmists can persuade all those people to keep quiet! In fact, you'd better be very, very afraid, because if the conspiracy were that effective, do you think it will let people like you keep spreading these rumours? The AGW hit squads should be after you.....................
Its just the descent into conspiracy theory fantasy, and where concern for evidence and data gets twisted, until M knows the answer at the start, then goes to look for an explanation, because those nasty climate scientists make her feel so ILL! Perhaps we need a new word for that, because it's a phobia that is new to me...................................
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 15, 2011 14:05:30 GMT 1
"and your new poster boy for cosmic rays"
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 15, 2011 15:06:54 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 15, 2011 22:25:31 GMT 1
"Clouded research" Date: Dunno "National Post · Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he'd be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun's role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature......." www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684...and there was me thinking I'd thought it all up myself, silly poster boy. -------- ps. Video from 2009 cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 18, 2011 9:56:44 GMT 1
calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/“no-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means”/“No, you mustn’t say what it means!”CERN chief forbids “interpretation” of CLOUD results Although still very busy with other work, I keep looking out for results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, which is testing Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays help to make clouds. They are due for publication this summer. All I have just now is a startling remark by Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, in an interview by Welt Online a few days ago. Here is a tidied-up Google Translate version of the relevant exchange. Welt Online: The results of the so-called CLOUD experiment, exploring the formation of clouds, are awaited with great excitement. Could these results still be important for understanding global climate change? Heuer: This is indeed a matter of understanding better the formation of clouds. In nature there are many parameters at work – including temperature, humidity, impurities and also cosmic radiation. In the experiment, CLOUD investigates the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, using radiation [meaning particles] coming from the accelerator. And in an experimental chamber one can study, under controlled conditions, how the formation of droplets depends on the radiation and particulate matter. The results will be published shortly. I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.Four quick inferences: 1) The results must be favourable for Svensmark or there would be no such anxiety about them. 2) CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation. 3) The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results. 4) The resulting publication may be rather boring. The interview with Welt Online (in German) is here: www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article13488331/Wie-Illuminati-den-Cern-Forschern-geholfen-hat.htmlFor earlier posts on this blog about “waiting for CERN” see: calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation/calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 18, 2011 10:03:15 GMT 1
Theo Goodwin says: 18/07/2011 at 00:43
What makes Svensmark’s work so very important is that he is the only scientist who offers physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict a natural process, cloud formation in this case, that could have a very large effect on climate change. His rather complicated physical hypotheses connect the sun’s behavior to cosmic rays reaching Earth and, in turn, connect the cosmic rays to the natural process of cloud formation. No other climate scientist has anything similar. The CAGW people are locked in their Gaia Models. People such as Michael Mann offer correlations between tree rings and temperature but no physical hypotheses at all.
Perhaps more important is the fact that Svensmark is a virtuoso practitioner of Scientific Method. His hypotheses explain and predict the phenomena that they organize and the phenomena provide observational evidence to support his hypotheses. His work is perfectly transparent, repeatable, and quite understandable to the layman who is willing to take for granted the thornier parts of cosmic ray theory.
Even if his work does not reveal all the secrets of climate change, it will be an important contribution to science. The same cannot be said for other climate scientists. I cannot wait to see his next publication.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 19, 2011 15:08:31 GMT 1
Actually perfectly sound science, as far as I can say. Just admitting that there is quite a big gap between the effects of particle beams in the lab, and what is actually going on in the atmosphere, and what effect that may or may not have on climate. As in mnat areas of interdisciplinary research, he is advising (as far as I can see), that the particle geezers don't make fools of themselves by making grandiose claims for climate when they dont necessarily have the expertise or the evidence to back it up. Years ago, particle physicists could happily speculate about things, no one would take much notice -- just that with the present climate as regards AGW, ANY comment they make is gonna be round the world in minutes IF the conspiracy theorists and sceptics think it possibly supports their contention that CO2 is innocent.
Agh, so you're willing to 'take for granted' the thornier parts of particle physics, yet jump up and down on any climate scientist when they try to suggest that the reason you may think they are wrong is because you don't understand the relevant science or statistics?
Climate science DOES offer physical hypotheses, based on known and tested lab science -- the basics of thermodynamics and the properties of CO2. Yes, its a leap from that to the effect on climate, BUT EXACTLY THE SAME LEAP HOLDS IN THE JUMP FROM THE EFFECT OF COSMIC RAYS ON CLOUD FORMATION (IF SEEN), TO THE EFFECT OF COSMIC RAYS ON CLIMATE.
The cosmic ray stuff, if it works will be just ANOTHER input into the climate models, along with increased CO2.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 19, 2011 17:09:18 GMT 1
STA
...And once we know the relevant % effects of each and are able to reduce the model mesh size to map complex cloud cover and other effects of water vapour we may have a model that not only replicates past climate but also agrees with the lack of warming recently experienced.
I can't wait! P
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 19, 2011 18:27:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 19, 2011 18:44:21 GMT 1
Google translation.... "Welt Online: With great power are expected, the results of the so-called cloud experiment, in which the formation of clouds is explored. These results could still be important for understanding the global climate change? This year: This is indeed a matter of better understanding the formation of clouds. In nature there are many parameters that influence - including temperature, humidity, impurities and also the cosmic radiation. In the experiment, "Cloud" is about to investigate the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Used for the radiation coming from the accelerator. And in an experimental chamber can be studied under controlled conditions, such as the formation of droplets depends on the radiation and particulate matter. The results will be published shortly. I asked the colleague to make the results clear, however, not to interpret. This would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to be clear that it is the cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters." ....from www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article13488331/Wie-Illuminati-den-Cern-Forschern-geholfen-hat.html
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 19, 2011 20:11:48 GMT 1
As I understand it, showing that particle beams have some effect on droplet formation (or whatever), is still several steps away from 'MORE cosmic rays equals MORE clouds', because there are OF COURSE other factors that effect cloud formation anyway. Then even when we have possible effects of cosmic rays on clouds (which ISN'T obvious else we would have found it from a simple correlation of amount of clouds and cosmic ray activity -- there seems to be a WEAK effect from that, as far as I know), then we have to go from cosmic rays -> clouds -> contribution to climate.
It ISN'T the simple -- cosmic rays cause clouds, cosmic rays vary, hence AGW is a pile of poo that M would like you to believe.
All that is being said, as far as I can see is just good advice -- DON'T claim more than you can show, DON'T make grandiose unsupportable claims, PRESENT the results, don't get into the whole 'AGW is wrong' bandwagon, just present the science.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 19, 2011 20:50:56 GMT 1
"DON'T claim more than you can show, DON'T make grandiose unsupportable claims, PRESENT the results, don't get into the whole 'AGW is wrong' bandwagon, just present the science. "
Bloody Good Advice! [for scientists]
Don't a-Hacking go [for the rest of us]
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 25, 2011 9:07:16 GMT 1
Nature news. Published online 24 August 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.504 News Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere. Geoff Brumfiel "It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, ...." The comments are interesting, but unfortunately you may get the message... "A technical error prevented us retrieving comments for this article. Please try again later." but not to worry, as I tried earlier, and saved the text! but before that try the direct address to the comments, see if it works... www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html#comment-id-26068[paste 'n copy to the browser address bar] here's a lead to Skeptical Science given by.... 2011-08-24 05:32:31 PM Posted by: Alan Burke www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htmand His comment text... "This has been known for a long time. See: GCR Cloud Seeding In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must achieve the following three steps. GCRs must induce aerosol formation These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently (through the condensation of gases in the atmosphere) to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN) The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation. The first step is not controversial, and is being investigated by the CERN CLOUD experiment. A recent study by Enghoff et al. (2011) also demonstrated some success in inducing aerosol formation under laboratory conditions, although they have yet to test the process under atmospheric conditions. However, the second step is often glossed over by those espousing the GCR warming theory. Freshly nucleated particles must grow by approximately a factor of 100,000 in mass before they can effectively scatter solar radiation or be activated into a cloud droplet (Verheggen 2009). Pierce and Adams (2009) investigated this second step by using a a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics in order to evaluate the growth rate of aerosols from changes in cosmic ray flux, and found that they are far too small to play a significant role in cloud formation or climate change. “In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.†" So that gives the opposite view. ---- However, here's what RealClimate have to say... "The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…" "The long-awaited first paper from the CERN/CLOUD project has just been published in Nature. The paper, by Kirkby et al, describes changes in aerosol nucleation as a function of increasing sulphates, ammonia and ionisation in the CERN-based ‘CLOUD’ chamber. Perhaps surprisingly, the key innovation in this experimental set up is not the presence of the controllable ionisation source (from the Proton Synchrotron accelerator), but rather the state-of-the-art instrumentation of the chamber that has allowed them to see in unprecedented detail what is going on in the aerosol nucleation process (this is according to a couple of aerosol people I’ve spoken about this with)...." and gives the lead to the Nature Letter... "Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation" Nature 476, 429–433 (25 August 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10343 Received 09 September 2010 Accepted 24 June 2011 Published online 24 August 2011 this is the Abstract. www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html Comment: It's been a long time coming, so long it leads to suspicion, ie. a suspension of belief, which is probably what is expected and required. It is further noted the RealClimate remarks.... "This paper is actually remarkably free of the over-the-top spin that has accompanied previous papers, and that bodes very well for making actual scientific progress on this topic." this seems to be an euphemism. StuartG en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managing_the_news
|
|