|
Post by StuartG on Aug 25, 2011 9:31:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by principled on Aug 25, 2011 10:33:47 GMT 1
Hi Stu Have read you links and Marchesa's thread. One point struck me. If Svensmark and the Danish team hypothesized about the formation/role of clouds etc as long ago as 1997, were any of their conclusions fed into the climate models used by the IPCC to determine the effects of rising CO2 on global temperatures? Or is this just another factor that has been left out of the algorithm? BTW, for those whose chemistry knowledge is a bit rusty/weak the links below will explain oxidised terpenes and organic amines, which appear in the rsc link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terpeneen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine P
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 25, 2011 13:32:09 GMT 1
As I understand it, principled, the reason CO2 is has been given such a prominent role in warming is because the IPCC couldn't think of anything else.
The reason they could not believe there was anything else involved is because they had, a priori, dismissed the role of the sun's variability. So, no, the true extent of solar variability (apart from simple simple TSI) has not been included in the models upon which all IPCC claims depend.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 25, 2011 14:04:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 25, 2011 14:10:51 GMT 1
CLASSIC! from The Guardian... "Cloud formation study casts a shadow over certain climate models" "One of the most detailed studies of the particles that seed clouds has revealed shortcomings in our picture of how they arise" Ian Sample, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 August 2011 18.00 BST www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-modelsStuartG
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 25, 2011 14:54:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 25, 2011 15:49:55 GMT 1
P. Thanks for the links, yes my chemistry is non-existent. Following the links took me to this... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding#HistoryThat answers one question, when did it all start, it says...
"Vincent Schaefer (1906–1993) discovered the principle of cloud seeding in July 1946 through a series of serendipitous events. Following ideas generated between himself and Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir while climbing Mt. Washington in New Hampshire,...."
but it is quite possible that it may have been discovered somewhere else even earlier as it's not unknown for the USA to claim something only to find there were previous efforts. [eg. flying and the acronym 'KIS' ]
Here's the Chinese take on it...
www.thingsasian.com/stories-photos/2987
----
Earlier I noted from RealClimate...
"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."
to be contrasted with...
"CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation" as the title for CERN's own press release.
press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html
----
The Danes have big interests in windpower.
The idea of CO2 affecting climate goes back to the 1880's or so. It has been the province of a small number until recently. The IPCC [not the Police one?] is really a politically driven setup with a veneer of scientists. Politicians have to devise other ways of funding, what better than to give the voters a guilt complex about the amount of damage they are doing just by breathing. A little science driven by a lot of ignorance. A nice little earner.
StuartG
StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 27, 2011 22:02:42 GMT 1
An Opinion piece... "Science now settled" Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post · Aug. 27, 2011 | Last Updated: Aug. 27, 2011 5:24 AM ET "...But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had - not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community. "The theory 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," Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature. The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Dane's groundbreaking theory...." www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/Science+settled/5315908/story.htmlComment: Even if the facts and names in this piece were ficticious [they are not] the scene in which it is set would make it believable.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 12, 2011 11:49:22 GMT 1
Nature Podcast 25 August 2011 The first track deals with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation [ENSO] and wars/conflict 00:35 Tempers and temperatures Warmer climate can increase the number of civil conflicts and at the bottom of the page... 21:44 Cosmic climate connection Can cosmic rays affect Earth's climate by helping clouds to form? www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index-2011-08-25.html.... Kirkby on Cosmic Rays "This video is to provide a check against rampant distortions of this research - by hearing the scientist speak for himself. Please use and link to this video as a response to uninformed or dishonest discussion of this much-distorted topic." www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXx62NhSkt8&feature=player_embeddedrepeat of the Nature Podcast... and finally, Are cosmic rays causing global warming? by potholer54 This is a 'rebuttal' of some of the blogs in which the viewer is offered the chance to look at the 'Letter' and is never actually shown the passage that supports the statement ... "so even if it could be conclusively shown that there is a slight cooling" [3:45 into video] this must be offset with the remarks by Kirkby that it does have a cooling effect, play the podcast above and His [Kirkby] first remarks state that. [30 watts per square metre ] I have been looking for some indications of 'supression' of information, and have found it difficult to find, but here is one indicator of such, see if you agree ... "5. Is Global Warming Solar or Man-made? The vested interests on both sides of the argument between the ``greenhouse'' party and the ``solar warming'' party are obvious. Scientifically, the meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists, who were responsible for ``discovering'' the human contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, have been the most consistent champions of its importance, while the solar physics community, and especially those interested in solar-terrestrial relations, have increasingly stressed the possible importance of the long-term variations of the solar constant as the chief cause of climate change. Both communities tend to take the change for granted, and to neglect any purely statistical or chaotic effects which could lead to excursions of the Earth's surface temperature during periods of a couple of decades, without requiring a secular change either in the solar constant or in atmospheric transparency. In addition, the debate is conditioned by more powerful vested-interest groups. The oil industry in all its guises would obviously like to believe, and would like the public to believe, that greenhouse warming has been greatly exaggerated, and exploits any genuine scientific differences to undermine the credibility of the climatologists. Solar physics has been losing ground steadily compared with other branches of astrophysics during the past few decades, and many of its practicioners have seen solar climate change as a chance to move into an area where funding may be more assured. These aspirations are of course legitimate, and there is indeed much work to be done in the field, but one should be aware of the political background to this delicate issue, and not fall into the trap of using possible solar warming as an excuse for delay in reducing man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. Whatever the magnitude of the effects of these in the long term, there is no doubt that their concentration has increased dramatically in the past 30 years, and that for many reasons this is not a desirable path to follow. " www.eso.org/sci/libraries/lisa3/beckmanj.htmlStuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 17, 2011 10:11:43 GMT 1
With the members of the CLOUD experiment off to find some new aerosols, here's a candidate(s)... Bioprecipitation. "The Long Strange Journey Of Earth’s Traveling Microbes" by Fred Pearce "Airborne microbes can travel thousands of miles and high into the stratosphere. Now scientists are beginning to understand the possible role of these microbes — such as bacteria, fungal spores, and tiny algae — in creating clouds, causing rain, spreading disease, and even changing climate." e360.yale.edu/feature/the_long_strange_journey_of_earths_traveling_microbes/2436/.... Broadcast Mon 15 Jun 2009 21:00 BBC Radio 4 "David Sands from Montana University, who coined the term" "Richard Hollingham investigates if bacteria in the atmosphere can influence the weather and meets some of the scientists who are working in what has been called 'bioprecipitation'. He talks to David Sands from Montana University, who coined the term, and visits labs in Avignon and London where researchers are trying to understand more about the impact of bacterial particles on our weather. If the complexities of bioprecipitation can be unravelled, it might be possible to turn the process to our advantage and use these extraordinary bacteria to encourage rainfall in drought-affected regions of the world." www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l0xxn.... Comment: Unfortunately this has already found its way into commercial exploitation, with not so beneficial outcomes? Here's a piece from Wiki that suggest some 'DNA diddling'... "Plant pathogens Most known ice-nucleating bacteria are plant pathogens. These pathogens can cause freezing injury in plants. In the United States alone, it has been estimated that frost accounts for approximately $1 billion in crop damage each year. The ice-minus variant of P. syringae is a mutant, lacking the gene responsible for ice-nucleating surface protein production. This lack of surface protein provides a less favorable environment for ice formation. Both strains of P. syringae occur naturally, but recombinant DNA technology has allowed for the synthetic removal or alteration of specific genes, enabling the creation of the ice-minus strain. The introduction of an ice-minus strain of P. syringae to the surface of plants would incur competition between the strains. Should the ice-minus strain win out, the ice nucleate provided by P. syringae would no longer be present, lowering the level of frost development on plant surfaces at normal water freezing temperature (0°C)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprecipitation#Plant_pathogensIf we want to see what affects our climate, look in our own back yards first.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 17, 2011 10:55:59 GMT 1
Admitted Weather Modification Texas Cloud Seeding 2011 www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrHiJ1RyzzY&feature=relatedI can see a conflict of interests here - one lot in US seeding clouds and another changing the balance of plant pathogens to make their tomatoes look nice.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 17, 2011 15:46:26 GMT 1
Here is a blog written by the people who were interviewed for the BBC programme, Frontiers. February 18, 2010 · 7:00 am Guest Weblog “The Enigma Of Biological Ice Nucleators” By Cindy E. Morris and David C. Sands by Cindy E. Morris and David C. Sands "In the mid 1970’s several research groups discovered independently that the plant pathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas syringae was a very active ice nucleator (2, 5, 10). Although other organisms have since been discovered to have ice nucleation activity, P. syringae and related bacteria still hold the title of producing ice nuclei active at the warmest temperatures observed in nature (up to -1° to -2°C). ..." pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/guest-weblog-the-enigma-of-biological-ice-nucleators-by-cindy-e-morris-and-david-c-sands/
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 17, 2011 15:51:16 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 17, 2011 21:52:25 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 30, 2011 23:32:00 GMT 1
Ars Technica "Do cosmic rays set the earth's thermostat?" By Scott K. Johnson | Published about an hour ago "......charged particles like cosmic rays can cause molecules of sulfuric acid, water, or other vapors to combine and form aerosols (particles about 1 nanometer in diameter). This provides a potential link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Understanding aerosols Note the word "potential." There are a number of things that need to happen before those aerosols can affect cloud cover. They must increase in mass about 100,000-fold before they're the size of the condensation nuclei that facilitate water droplet formation in clouds. The CLOUD experiment at CERN may eventually be able to provide insight into that process; in the meantime, other studies have examined it using atmospheric models that simulate aerosol processes. These studies have indicated that the number of cloud condensation nuclei is not very sensitive to the nucleation of aerosols by cosmic rays. ..... Rays, clouds, and climate Since the direct connection between cosmic rays and clouds remains tenuous, the case for cosmic ray control of climate has been made primarily on correlations between global low cloud cover and solar activity. Historically, some climate events can be correlated with changes in solar activity, but there has been no long-term trend in cosmic rays to accompany the temperature rise of the last few decades. .... The authors write, “It is concluded that the observational results presented, showing several years of disconnect between GCRs and lower troposphere global cloudiness, add additional concern to the cosmic ray-cloud connection hypothesis. In fact, this has been done in the most dramatic way with the measurement of record high levels of GCRs during the deep, extended quiet period of [solar] cycle 23-24, which is accompanied by record low levels of lower troposphere global cloudiness.” arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/do-cosmic-rays-set-the-earths-thermostat.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rssPaper... "Cosmic rays, aerosol formation and cloud-condensation nuclei: sensitivities to model uncertainties" Received: 12 January 2011 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 24 January 2011 Revised: 20 April 2011 – Accepted: 21 April 2011 – Published: 29 April 2011 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4001/2011/acp-11-4001-2011.pdfComment: This says it all for me... "In this work, we used the global chemical transport model GEOS-Chem v8.02.02 (www.geos-chem.org) with 4 latitudinal by a 5 longitudinal horizontal resolution with 30 vertical layers from the surface to 0.01 hPa. Meteorology inputs are from the GEOS3 reanalysis (http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov). " in short, another 'pootah model'. .... I wonder if Pseudomonas syringae are addicted to GCR's?
|
|