Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Pliny

CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

Recommended Posts

Looks like Al Gore's world is flooding.

Please poopoo CERN scientists latest publication on their CLOUD experiment, waldo. We need a proper perspective here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please poopoo CERN scientists latest publication on their CLOUD experiment, waldo. We need a proper perspective here.
The main criticism of the paper is there is still a lot of work to do translating the experimental results in the lab into a verified effect on the climate. There are many confounding variables and it does not automatically follow that the cosmic ray effect will be as large as many hope. Of course, that does not take away from the main message that the study sends: that there are factors other than CO2 that could explain the rise in temperature. This renders all of the 'it must be CO2 cause there is nothing else' arguments null.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny... feeling lucky? :lol:

your brother-in-arms denier, jbg, already beat you to the punch... like you, he failed to actually put up anything as to what the CERN/CLOUD experiment actually claims, what it means, where it fits, implications, etc., etc., etc.

why not step out of your dark recesses Pliny... why don't you step up and state what you understand/interpret in regards the initial CLOUD/CERN experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny... feeling lucky? :lol:

your brother-in-arms denier, jbg, already beat you to the punch... like you, he failed to actually put up anything as to what the CERN/CLOUD experiment actually claims, what it means, where it fits, implications, etc., etc., etc.

why not step out of your dark recesses Pliny... why don't you step up and state what you understand/interpret in regards the initial CLOUD/CERN experiment.

Thanks for pointing out "johnny b good's" reference. I read your comment there. Whew!

You know my stand, waldo. The temperature went up in the last century 1.5 degrees fahrenheit. It isn't confirmed to be anthropogenic in nature but politicians are paying dearly to have it confirmed.

Should we reduce carbon emissions? I'm all for it but I won't support politically motivated actions that accomplish nothing, like trading carbon credits which will just add to the cost of production when that cost could be applied to a real reduction in carbon emissions.

Like me, it's pretty simple, waldo. Doesn't the CLOUD paper just scream for further political support to prove the CAGW theory? You know; batton all the hatches, full speed ahead....It's certainly got you screaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main criticism of the paper is there is still a lot of work to do translating the experimental results in the lab into a verified effect on the climate. There are many confounding variables and it does not automatically follow that the cosmic ray effect will be as large as many hope. Of course, that does not take away from the main message that the study sends: that there are factors other than CO2 that could explain the rise in temperature. This renders all of the 'it must be CO2 cause there is nothing else' arguments null.

Of course, we can expect criticism - it isn't a politically correct position. If it were simply a scientific finding without political implication it wouldn't create any public hubbub whatsoever.

As you point out the main message sticks in the craw of the true believers and they have to now rise to the occassion - again...on this new front...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny... feeling lucky? :lol:

your brother-in-arms denier, jbg, already beat you to the punch... like you, he failed to actually put up anything as to what the CERN/CLOUD experiment actually claims, what it means, where it fits, implications, etc., etc., etc.

why not step out of your dark recesses Pliny... why don't you step up and state what you understand/interpret in regards the initial CLOUD/CERN experiment.

Waldo, I can understand you taking your usual position, that is, trying to get good shape on the debate!

Couldn't you put that aside a moment? Maybe share some of your knowledge in the search for truth?

Does CERN's experiment mean that there is at least one other factor than just CO2? Are said experiment's results significant or trivial? Why?

Or is it that everything is dependent on CO2, nothing else but, forevermore no matter what new evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" I remember Gore specifically stating that CO2 is not the only GHG affecting the ozone layer. However, because CO2 has been traced since about 1958 (the Keeling Curve) it provides a strong indication of the actual accumulations of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increases in CO2 indicate that the other more volatile GHGs are increasing at an equal or greater rate.

Edited by charter.rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course CO2 is not the only factor - climate scientists know this.

Furthermore, the cosmic ray theory isn't new and it's been investigated by a few scientists as well. I believe Friis-Christensen was one of these scientists, and last I checked he seemed to be giving up on it.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that papers SUPPORTING the AGW theory come out all the time, and these are not mentioned in the newspapers that publish anything that holds out any glimmer of hope that AGW is not true.

You are reading newspapers that are advancing a political agenda. If you don't agree with politics and science being abused to promote AGW, then you shouldn't agree with it being abused to deny AGW either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course CO2 is not the only factor - climate scientists know this.
The issue is whether it is factor large enough to explain recent temperature trends without CO2. The answer appears to yes.
Furthermore, the cosmic ray theory isn't new and it's been investigated by a few scientists as well. I believe Friis-Christensen was one of these scientists, and last I checked he seemed to be giving up on it.
Alarmists have been trying to kill this research for years. The personal attacks on Svensmark (it was not Friis-Christensen) were quite disgusting at the time. It was one of first indications to me of the hopeless corruption within climate science establishment but it took me years before I fully appreciated how bad it is.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that papers SUPPORTING the AGW theory come out all the time, and these are not mentioned in the newspapers that publish anything that holds out any glimmer of hope that AGW is not true.
Lots of papers come out that ASSUME CO2 induced AGW is a fact. That is different from supporting it. Very few papers actually provide evidence that can be construed to support it. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised: Looks like Al Gore's world is flooding.

Please poopoo CERN scientists latest publication on their CLOUD experiment, waldo. We need a proper perspective here.

why not step out of your dark recesses Pliny... why don't you step up and state what you understand/interpret in regards the initial CLOUD/CERN experiment.
You know my stand, waldo. The temperature went up in the last century 1.5 degrees fahrenheit. It isn't confirmed to be anthropogenic in nature but politicians are paying dearly to have it confirmed.

confirmed? In the face of very strong empirical evidence that the understood/accepted rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by mankind... in the face of a fundamental facet of basic physics, greenhouse effect warming... in the face of an irrefutable correlation between the current rise in temperature and the current rise in CO2 level... in the face of no other alternate causal link between the current warming and the current rise in CO2, other than rising CO2 attributed to mankind... just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?

care to expound on your most charged comment that, as you say, "politicians are paying dearly to have it confirmed"? To clear up your double-entendre, are you suggesting that, (1) politicians are paying for a preconceived result/outcome... the result/outcome as predetermined by politicians; or, (2) politicians are paying for a result/outcome... one preconceived by "others"... and, if so, who/what are the others?

Should we reduce carbon emissions? I'm all for it but I won't support politically motivated actions that accomplish nothing, like trading carbon credits which will just add to the cost of production when that cost could be applied to a real reduction in carbon emissions.

but would you support a price on carbon?

Like me, it's pretty simple, waldo. Doesn't the CLOUD paper just scream for further political support to prove the CAGW theory? You know; batton all the hatches, full speed ahead....It's certainly got you screaming.

this (and your thread title phrasing) showcases your misunderstanding and real intent behind this thread. I won't suggest you're distorting or fabricating... you're simply parroting. You've bought into the false premise propagated by the denialMachine, that CERN/CLOUD and "climate science" reflect upon competing paths/pursuits. You've also bought into the false premise that the initial experiment results are something that either diminish or negate aspects of the AGW theory... however wildly (and falsely) extrapolated upon by the denialMachine towards the next (of many) future CLOUD phases/undertakings. Your suggestion that, as you say, "It's certainly got you screaming"... is silly and baseless... (besides replying to you, I've only posted a basic/minimalistic response to the only other MLW CERN/CLOUD reference to come forward... that, within another concurrently running MLW thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course CO2 is not the only factor - climate scientists know this.
The issue is whether it is factor large enough to explain recent temperature trends without CO2. The answer appears to yes.

appears? :lol: Anything else that... alternately... appears, for ya?

Furthermore, the cosmic ray theory isn't new and it's been investigated by a few scientists as well. I believe Friis-Christensen was one of these scientists, and last I checked he seemed to be giving up on it.
Alarmists have been trying to kill this research for years. The personal attacks on Svensmark (it was not Friis-Christensen) were quite disgusting at the time. It was one of first indications to me of the hopeless corruption within climate science establishment but it took me years before I fully appreciated how bad it is.

care to discuss death threats climate scientists have received? Care to discuss the long sordid history of targeted hate, vilification, undermining, etc., campaigns against some of the more prominent climate scientists? Do you really want to head down this path? I'm about done ignoring you continually playing the victim card...

Also, it needs to be pointed out that papers SUPPORTING the AGW theory come out all the time, and these are not mentioned in the newspapers that publish anything that holds out any glimmer of hope that AGW is not true.
Lots of papers come out that ASSUME CO2 induced AGW is a fact. That is different from supporting it. Very few papers actually provide evidence that can be construed to support it.

very few papers? Define what constitutes, as you say, "construed support" - what are your criteria points? Attribution?..... detection?..... correlation?..... observations?..... empirical evidence?..... or what? Name your criteria points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
care to discuss death threats climate scientists have received? Care to discuss the long sordid history of targeted hate, vilification, undermining, etc., campaigns against some of the more prominent climate scientists?
I expect such behavoir from politicians and political operatives. I do not expect such behavoir from people speaking for the scientific establishment. So there is no comparison. I know you won't like the double standard but political operatives are not asking me to trust their expertise. Scientists are. Therefore they must meet higher standards.
very few papers? Define what constitutes, as you say, "construed support" - what are your criteria points? Attribution?..... detection?..... correlation?..... observations?..... empirical evidence?..... or what? Name your criteria points.
Attribution is what matters here. Simply observing that the climate has warmed provides no evidence that CO2 is the cause. Attribution studies are few and far between - hence my comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

confirmed? In the face of very strong empirical evidence that the understood/accepted rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by mankind... in the face of a fundamental facet of basic physics, greenhouse effect warming... in the face of an irrefutable correlation between the current rise in temperature and the current rise in CO2 level... in the face of no other alternate causal link between the current warming and the current rise in CO2, other than rising CO2 attributed to mankind... just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?

care to expound on your most charged comment that, as you say, "politicians are paying dearly to have it confirmed"? To clear up your double-entendre, are you suggesting that, (1) politicians are paying for a preconceived result/outcome... the result/outcome as predetermined by politicians; or, (2) politicians are paying for a result/outcome... one preconceived by "others"... and, if so, who/what are the others?

The science is suggesting carbon is a problem and politicians are devising plans to capitalize on that suggestion, emphaisis on capitalize not find resolutions. Of course, since they have moved ahead with plans it would hurt them dearly to have to reconsider. This latest cold blast from CERN is very disconcerting. Does it threaten your grant level?

but would you support a price on carbon?

this (and your thread title phrasing) showcases your misunderstanding and real intent behind this thread. I won't suggest you're distorting or fabricating... you're simply parroting. You've bought into the false premise propagated by the denialMachine, that CERN/CLOUD and "climate science" reflect upon competing paths/pursuits. You've also bought into the false premise that the initial experiment results are something that either diminish or negate aspects of the AGW theory... however wildly (and falsely) extrapolated upon by the denialMachine towards the next (of many) future CLOUD phases/undertakings. Your suggestion that, as you say, "It's certainly got you screaming"... is silly and baseless... (besides replying to you, I've only posted a basic/minimalistic response to the only other MLW CERN/CLOUD reference to come forward... that, within another concurrently running MLW thread).

waldo, the temperature over the last century has risen 1.5 degrees fahrenheit(.8 degrees centigrade). And it isn't like the temperature is going to remain stable forever. I am not alarmed. I do appreciate your concern for the planet and expecting all of us to be more responsible for the environment. Good idea.

No, I would not support a price on carbon. As mentioned, it isn't the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas.

Slippy slidy politicians will work with you I'm sure. They are always looking for new sources of taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attribution is what matters here. Simply observing that the climate has warmed provides no evidence that CO2 is the cause. Attribution studies are few and far between - hence my comment.

Of course, that's not what we're talking about. Climate Scientist has done more than observe temperatures. They have researched and provide correlations between temperature, and the major factors influencing it.

Even if there have been a 'few' papers laterly (How many would you say ? 6? 10?) then that still puts the consensus far on the AGW side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/09/cern-the-sun-causes-global-warming/

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

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 Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

confirmed? In the face of very strong empirical evidence that the understood/accepted rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by mankind... in the face of a fundamental facet of basic physics, greenhouse effect warming... in the face of an irrefutable correlation between the current rise in temperature and the current rise in CO2 level... in the face of no other alternate causal link between the current warming and the current rise in CO2, other than rising CO2 attributed to mankind... just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?

care to expound on your most charged comment that, as you say, "politicians are paying dearly to have it confirmed"? To clear up your double-entendre, are you suggesting that, (1) politicians are paying for a preconceived result/outcome... the result/outcome as predetermined by politicians; or, (2) politicians are paying for a result/outcome... one preconceived by "others"... and, if so, who/what are the others?

The science is suggesting carbon is a problem and politicians are devising plans to capitalize on that suggestion, emphaisis on capitalize not find resolutions. Of course, since they have moved ahead with plans it would hurt them dearly to have to reconsider.

which politicians, which plans and capitalize... how? Specificity will help your case here, Pliny... trundling on down the "New World Order" rhetoric path will not.
This latest cold blast from CERN is very disconcerting.

what do you interpret/declare from CERN/CLOUD presents a, as you say, "cold blast"? What do you interpret/declare from CERN/CLOUD is, as you say, "very disconcerting"?

so... what... no Pliny reply to my first paragraph above? No Pliny reply advising on, "just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?

but would you support a price on carbon?

this (and your thread title phrasing) showcases your misunderstanding and real intent behind this thread. I won't suggest you're distorting or fabricating... you're simply parroting. You've bought into the false premise propagated by the denialMachine, that CERN/CLOUD and "climate science" reflect upon competing paths/pursuits. You've also bought into the false premise that the initial experiment results are something that either diminish or negate aspects of the AGW theory... however wildly (and falsely) extrapolated upon by the denialMachine towards the next (of many) future CLOUD phases/undertakings. Your suggestion that, as you say, "It's certainly got you screaming"... is silly and baseless... (besides replying to you, I've only posted a basic/minimalistic response to the only other MLW CERN/CLOUD reference to come forward... that, within another concurrently running MLW thread).

waldo, the temperature over the last century has risen 1.5 degrees fahrenheit(.8 degrees centigrade). And it isn't like the temperature is going to remain stable forever. I am not alarmed. I do appreciate your concern for the planet and expecting all of us to be more responsible for the environment. Good idea.

that you would couch your blinding lack of consideration/concern/"alarm" in terms of accepting your vaguely suggested future timeline of de facto temperature instability, is aided and abetted by your blindness to the current compressed period of accelerated and enhanced warming, a/the timeline(s) of projected warming and a comparative review/analysis of current to past warming
No, I would not support a price on carbon. As mentioned, it isn't the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas.

so... no cap™ for Pliny. No tax&dividend for Pliny. And yet... you say you support reducing 'carbon emissions'. Is there a representative, understood and recognized practical mechanism, market based (or not), that would help assist a Pliny acknowledged support for reducing carbon emissions?

we haven't seen Mr. Wizard Pliny for some time now... perhaps Mr. Wizard should check out the significance of water vapour feedback on temperature, per increased CO2... and the relative short residual time of water vapour as compared to CO2

Slippy slidy politicians will work with you I'm sure. They are always looking for new sources of taxation.

without accepting your premise, just what types of politicians will work with the most selectively applied libertarian bent, anti-science Pliny... the guy who states he supports reducing carbon emissions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: surprisingly... GH punches forward with a blind link from the... uhhh... European Union Times, a blog masquerading as a newsite... an article that includes a wildly inaccurate title and quotes entirely from noted deniers, "Calder, Motl, Solomon". Even for you GostHacked, this is a low amongst previous style MLW tabloid sourced, run&gun, ta-da, drive-by's! :lol:

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if there have been a 'few' papers laterly (How many would you say ? 6? 10?) then that still puts the consensus far on the AGW side.

ah yes, where I was headed... getting TimG to qualify his vaguely sourced/defined declarative is always a challenge... so, we have been able to flush out "attribution", but not yet what constitutes the vaguely offered, "very few" and "few and far between" references. Equally, we don't have a comparative reference point... you know, how many attribution studies, standing with merit attribution studies, have been published offering an alternate linkage... an alternate other than anthropogenic based? How many of those are there, hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if there have been a 'few' papers laterly (How many would you say ? 6? 10?) then that still puts the consensus far on the AGW side.
I am being generous. The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic. That would put the ratio of pro-CAGW to anti-CAGW at 1:1 which refutes your orginal point that there is a massive imbalance in the literature. When it comes to the specific topic of attribution I would say there is not. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: surprisingly... GH punches forward with a blind link from the... uhhh... European Union Times, a blog masquerading as a newsite... an article that includes a wildly inaccurate title and quotes entirely from noted deniers, "Calder, Motl, Solomon". Even for you GostHacked, this is a low amongst previous style MLW tabloid sourced, run&gun, ta-da, drive-by's! :lol:

No matter what people link here, you will find some flaw with it. So because you don't like the messenger, you by default won't like the message.

Al Gore says we need to win the conversation. But that does not mean he is right about his message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am being generous. The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic. That would put the ratio of pro-CAGW to anti-CAGW at 1:1 which refutes your orginal point that there is a massive imbalance in the literature. When it comes to the specific topic of attribution I would say there is not.

put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No matter what people link here, you will find some flaw with it. So because you don't like the messenger, you by default won't like the message.

Al Gore says we need to win the conversation. But that does not mean he is right about his message.

that you would throw-up a POS from that source, one that has no foundations to anything CERN/CLOUD has brought forward, one that quotes from specious out&out deniers extraordinaire, is not, as you say, "a message"... of credibility. That you did it blindly without even bothering to offer a single word of your interpretation of CERN/CLOUD, let alone not offering anything about the POS article itself, says everything one needs to know about you and this, your latest drive-by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that you would throw-up a POS from that source, one that has no foundations to anything CERN/CLOUD has brought forward, one that quotes from specious out&out deniers extraordinaire, is not, as you say, "a message"... of credibility. That you did it blindly without even bothering to offer a single word of your interpretation of CERN/CLOUD, let alone not offering anything about the POS article itself, says everything one needs to know about you and this, your latest drive-by.

Damn you sound like a pompous spoiled child at times. The thread is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.
The CERN and Spencer papers are two. Then your have the Linzden papers. Your opinion of these papers is irrelevant. Micheal was engaging in the rediculous exercise of judging science by counting the number of papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am being generous. The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic. That would put the ratio of pro-CAGW to anti-CAGW at 1:1 which refutes your orginal point that there is a massive imbalance in the literature. When it comes to the specific topic of attribution I would say there is not.

Here's the latest study I can find, from 2010

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[106]

Why do papers like the Financial Post give MORE coverage to view that represent a fringe minority ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...