Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Pliny

CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

Recommended Posts

They deny that the climate has been warming naturally for centuries.

earth warming, on any level, requires a forcing. That past natural warming you speak to just wasn't happenstance. The only forcing that can account for the most recent enhanced/accelerated warming is anthropogenic sourced CO2... don't hesitate to provide support for your alternate attribution causal linkage.

They deny that the Sun and clouds could have any significant effect on climate.

the effect/tie that both the Sun and clouds have is acknowledged. Solar forcing, or the response of cloud feedback, does not account for the most recent enhanced/accelerated warming... don't hesitate to provide support for your otherwise stated implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... 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?
The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic.

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.

well... now we are getting somewhere. In keeping with this threads OP focus (CERN/CLOUD), let's forgo discussion on the woefully failed Spencer & Lindzen papers/premise. Let's examine your claim that the CERN results... those initial results now just recently released by CERN... are, as you say, presenting an attribution study - one that, as you say, presents an alternate premise/causal link for global warming, one other than anthropogenic based.
Please support your claim that the recent CERN/CLOUD paper/results is an attribution study, one that presents a causal basis for global warming.
It is also unscientific to refuse to acknowledge that CERN experiment could be the first step in establishing a physical mechanism that does explain the observations better than CO2.

excuse me... pardon! I thought you were quite emphatic in stating the initial CERN/CLOUD results are an attribution study, presenting an alternate premise/causal link for global warming, one other than anthropogenic based. Are you becoming... have you become... less emphatic? Do tell.

It is wrong to reject becasue they don't definitively disprove the current paradigm at this time. Paradigm shifts often start with such discoveries.In a normal science field these discoveries would be celebrated - but in climate science many scientists believe they also have to be political activists so they work over time trying to debunk any contrary idea that pops up. This is why climate science, as a field, is sick.

TimG_Conspiracy® aside, climate/atmospheric scientists have openly embraced CERN/CLOUD as a long awaited vehicle to improve upon the knowledge and modeling associated with atmospheric aerosols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most telling aspect of his conversation is, if he believed what he said about me, he wouldn't even bother commenting on my posts or threads on this subject. It wouldn't be worth his time but for some reason he thinks it is.

:lol: that's right Pliny... it's all about you, about your now favoured "conversation" theme, and most importantly, tailoring that "conversation"... for you! Pliny, ever the, as you say, introvert! In some cases, Pliny, like this one... it most certainly is worth any small investment in my time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1922 ? Ok.

That would be as much as I would expect the average person to have to understand in any case. As long as there was an understanding of how these theories are put together, and a common understanding of the risks and risk levels.

Here's the article. Click on it to enlarge.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The hysteria and momentum of AGW is largely due to the word "unprecidented." That's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases, Pliny, like this one... it most certainly is worth any small investment in my time!

Why! What's the return on investment, waldo? Are you just having fun with a pet passion of yours?

I don't pay too much attention to this topic except for my concern regarding it's political implications. I am trying to understand the world around me which is the prime reason I engage in these discussions, it broadens my understanding. I find a piece of information I can generally agree with and bring it to the table to discuss. I have to think with it when people present opposing views and that is the broadening experience.

What I have found mostly is that people hold a particular opinion or view and things more or less fit together to make the world they live in.

One piece of information I have found that is very important is that people will act to improve their lives, that from Ludwig von Mises. Now that is a very broad statement to apply to life and it just doesn't apply to economics but behavior.

You seem to attack this topic with relentless fervor, waldo. So why, waldo? Is your island sinking? Are species disappearing from your acreage? Is your water contaminated and you can't swim on your beach anymore? Or is there some economic benefit? Do you own some stock in alternative energy? You apply for grants for scientists and get paid out of that? Is it entirely altruistic and you only are concerned for the future of mankind, or perhaps there is no concern for mankind but for the planet and it's flora and fauna of which mankind is a destructive force and must be restrained?

In any respect, I don't recognize a simple yearning for understanding. I see a shrill harping that can only derive energy from a motive that must remain undisclosed. A clearly understood motive would explain a lot of your belittling and denigrating attitude. Are you just frustrated with the stupidity of others? Maybe if you just realized that you manipulating them is what gives you this attitude towards them. Yes, people are ignorant but they aren't stupid. Give them all the information and they for the most part can understand, reveal only what you want them to know and that missing information makes them ignoramuses in your view - if they believe you. So what is it we need to know from you, waldo?

Just as an aside, I was remembering a picture of a recent climate show on TV that talked about the receding of the glaciers from a previous iceage. They show a model of the ice sheets receding from about Arizona on the North American continent but you know what they didn't show? They didn't show the water level rising - the flooding that should have occurred. North America basically remained the same size. Isn't that odd? All the models today of melting icecaps, let alone shrinking iceage glaciers stretching almost to the equator, would show the coast line of North America being devastated. It just goes to show that information gets forgotten when we are illustrating a point of view. It certainly isn't forgotten in the current presentation - I suppose because it's very important to the argument of climate change. And why is it now "climate change" instead of "global warming". As far as I can see it only changed the topic of discussion from a 1.5 degree change in temperature to a public conversation about the weather. Really, I would think you need at least a minimum of ten years to determine a shift in climate one way or the other. It's seems an advantage to the pro CAGW argument that puts a focus on high temperatures in Texas or hurricanes on the coast as if they are some form of "climate change".

Edited by Pliny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the article. Click on it to enlarge.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The hysteria and momentum of AGW is largely due to the word "unprecidented." That's not the case.

Interesting reading. There isn't much difference in today's news. What was missing was any alarmism surrounding the findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hysteria and momentum of AGW is largely due to the word "unprecidented." That's not the case.

Yes, that is strictly speaking an incorrect word. The earth was warmer by millions of degrees at some point in its past, I'm sure.

But if you're going to apply that level of stringent review to the reporting, then you have to do it on both sides. The deniers freely talk about 'fraud' or that the science has been disproven.

Are you going to call them out for that too ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the article. Click on it to enlarge.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

The hysteria and momentum of AGW is largely due to the word "unprecidented." That's not the case.

Interesting reading. There isn't much difference in today's news. What was missing was any alarmism surrounding the findings.

guys, guys... yours is quite a favourite for WTFIUWT TV-weatherman devotees!

alternatively, for your consideration and edification:

=>

=>

=>

=>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: that's right Pliny... it's all about you, about your now favoured "conversation" theme, and most importantly, tailoring that "conversation"... for you! Pliny, ever the, as you say, introvert! In some cases, Pliny, like this one... it most certainly is worth any small investment in my time!

Why! What's the return on investment, waldo? Are you just having fun with a pet passion of yours?

Pliny... since you won't friend me, this is a recourse. But, can we have some more of Mr. Wizard Pliny?... the self-indulgent, uber intellectual Pliny is a tough chew!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread borders on interesting but the ad-hominems are bringing it down.

I would like to learn more about the specifics of the CERN research, what it implies and why it could be right/wrong. More technical content, less name calling. (Although, some of it is quite humorous)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean for you all to stop, sheesh!

Or can we not have any kind of civil discussion around here.

Now, I consider myself to be an un-biased skeptic. No one has convinced me, but I want to know. I prefer to listen to science, hard facts and observations over politics.

The CERN thing seems to say, it's the sun, due to increased cosmic rays resulting from a drop in the suns magnetic field.

As an astronomy enthusiast and a "backyard Galileo" I know that the sun is doing something very strange for a few years now. The number of sunspots has dramatically decreased. The next solar cycle should have started a few years ago but is so far absent. In a recent article in 'Sky and Telescope' I read that there is speculation that the sunspot cycle is about to come to an end.

They've posted that article online here-

Is the Sunspot Cycle About to Stop?

In that article it points out that the suns magnetic field is decreasing:

Penn and Livingston find that since about (year)2000, the average field strength has declined from 2,500 or 3,000 gauss to about 2,000 gauss now. They expected Cycle 24's spots to appear with rejuvenated field strength, but they didn't. The average magnetic field in the centers of sunspots has continued a more or less unbroken decline, as shown here. (graph)

We also have this information-

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Perhaps you boyz have already covered this in other threads, but for the moment please, indulge me.

Edited by Sir Bandelot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Bandelot

I agree with you about the sun doing some really strange things. Are these large CMEs we are seeing now a result of the sun's magnetic field diminishing?

We know that these CMEs throw off a lot of gamma/x-ray which seems to wreck havoc on our satellite systems and communications in general.

So what does that do to the earth's magnetic field with these large burst?

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to learn more about the specifics of the CERN research, what it implies and why it could be right/wrong.

perhaps he who postured an emphatic claim that the initial CERN/CLOUD paper/results presents an attribution study that speaks to a causal basis for global warming... perhaps he could step forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps he who postured an emphatic claim that the initial CERN/CLOUD paper/results presents an attribution study that speaks to a causal basis for global warming... perhaps he could step forward.

They might do that. But it's possible to raise questions without having answers, as I did. And then going out to find some answers.

The CERN experiment is interesting in that it was real science, and showed some interesting results but that does not mean it's definitive. The climate system is so vast and complex that it's hard for us laymen to really understand it, let alone debate. Heck even scientists are clearly in disagreement on many things here, some for political purposes but not only that. The model is not complete, and maybe it never can be. Since chaos seems to be a factor, and we only have good data for a short period of time, and vague general data for long periods of time.

It occurs to me that the cosmic rays hypothesis does not hold for apparent global warming on Mars. The cosmic rays hypothesis is based on the model that rays from the solar wind interact with our atmosphere to create water droplets and thus more cloud cover. That cannot be the case on Mars, for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They might do that. But it's possible to raise questions without having answers, as I did.

I wasn't being dismissive to you... I recall answering one of your earlier questions. I'm now out the door for some weekend back-country hiking - back Monday evening. I trust, in the interim, you may hear from 'he who postured'. In either case, I'll throw up my 'interpretations of interpretations' (ala Delingpole :lol: ... a little ditty which may not resonate with some).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Bandelot

I agree with you about the sun doing some really strange things. Are these large CMEs we are seeing now a result of the sun's magnetic field diminishing?

We know that these CMEs throw off a lot of gamma/x-ray which seems to wreck havoc on our satellite systems and communications in general.

So what does that do to the earth's magnetic field with these large burst?

It appears that the opposite is more common, that solar flares and CME's originate from sunspots hence there should be more CME's during the active part of the solar cycle.

From what I understand there is an increased output of constant solar wind during parts of the solar cycle where there are few sunspots. Sunspots are regions of intense localized magnetic field. There is some effect on the overall magnetic field of the sun, during times when there are many sunspots. This lowers the output of solar wind (electrons and protons streaming constantly out from the sun), so that energy is stored in the corona and at some point there is a magnetic collapse, and resultant output of an intense solar flare. I'm no expert.

Effects from the solar wind can be seen in comets, whose tails always point away from the sun no matter whether the comet is moving towards or away from the sun. Recently we observed the comet Elenin disintegrate before our very eyes, as it were. The solar wind travels out beyond the solar system itself, where there is a boundary point that creates a kind of "bow-shock" as our solar system travels through space. The energy in the solar wind is substantial.

The energy in the corona is even higher. The corona is a gas cloud surrounding the sun, that is much higher in temperature than the sun itself. Upwards of two million degrees C. Components of the corona extend beyond the orbit of planet earth, though at this distance they are quite 'rarefied'. It is interesting to note that during times of 'quiet sun', the corona changes its shape and becomes more dense, and extends farther out primarily along the equatorial axis of the sun.

spooky stuff :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't being dismissive to you... I recall answering one of your earlier questions. I'm now out the door for some weekend back-country hiking - back Monday evening. I trust, in the interim, you may hear from 'he who postured'. In either case, I'll throw up my 'interpretations of interpretations' (ala Delingpole :lol: ... a little ditty which may not resonate with some).

No, I realize that. Enjoy your break. And hope we can further discuss these matters upon your return!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny... since you won't friend me, this is a recourse. But, can we have some more of Mr. Wizard Pliny?... the self-indulgent, uber intellectual Pliny is a tough chew!

Yes, make it about me, that would be the proper deflective maneuver. Mr. Wizard Pliny, self indulgent, uber intellectual Pliny - what's that???? Mere name calling.

Avoidance of everything I said would be the most effective action, I suppose.

Most of those reading my posts digging for a motive from you probably just think you are an enthusiast or an environmentalist, although you have never claimed to be and it would be the simplest answer to my question, and to them, I appear as a "tough chew".

About the CERN/CLOUD experiment. You can't discount and flame the scientists or their credentials, you can't demonize the organization, you can't discount the journal where it was published, you can't tie them to oil, so what's the plan? Minimize it's impact somehow. Tell us it means almost nothing. Well, it means there will be some adjustment to climate models.

You should be exhilarated. Think of all the grants that will be necessary to remodel the models. It's billions for the cause! Or are you afraid of the fact that perhaps interest will fade? The public won't support further investment?

Edited by Pliny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or are you afraid of the fact that perhaps interest will fade? The public won't support further investment?

Further to your surmising on Waldo - and to my previous post that the court of public opinion usually prevails, here are some interesting results from some Gallup Poll questions. Every indicator for confidence in Climate Change "science" has gone substantially negative. As this survey was done back in March of this year, I would hazard a guess that today, confidence is continuing a downward spiral. I've only posted the Summation - have a look at the actual survey.

Implications

The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans' attitudes about global warming. Most Gallup measures up to 2008 had shown increasing concern over global warming on the part of the average American, in line with what one might have expected given the high level of publicity on the topic. Former Vice President Al Gore had been particularly prominent in this regard, with the publication of his bestselling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," an Academy Award-winning documentary movie focusing on his global warming awareness campaign, and Gore's receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

But the public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.

Some of the shifts in Americans' views may reflect real-world events, including the publicity surrounding allegations of scientific fraud relating to global warming evidence, and -- perhaps in some parts of the country -- a reflection of the record-breaking snow and cold temperatures of this past winter. Additionally, evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect. A forthcoming analysis here at Gallup.com will examine shifts in global warming attitudes in recent years among various demographic and political groups.

Link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every indicator for confidence in Climate Change "science" has gone substantially negative. As this survey was done back in March of this year, I would hazard a guess that today, confidence is continuing a downward spiral. I've only posted the Summation - have a look at the actual survey.

Link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

Most people are probably just resigned to the likelihood that economics is going to trump virtue no matter what. The path to enlightenment as always remains painful so we might as well put the pedal to the metal and get on with it.

At this point I think my apathy, born of resignation, must be morphing into morbid curiosity about where we're headed.

In the meantime seen any indicators on confidence in economic "science" lately? I don't get it, you'd think that with the likelihood of action ever being taken on climate change waning that the market would be roaring it's approval and the economy would be going full steam ahead. Maybe the pedal is just stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the CERN/CLOUD experiment. You can't discount and flame the scientists or their credentials, you can't demonize the organization, you can't discount the journal where it was published, you can't tie them to oil, so what's the plan? Minimize it's impact somehow. Tell us it means almost nothing. Well, it means there will be some adjustment to climate models.

I don't think it means that, and there's no need to minimize the impact. It's an interesting development is all. There's a long way to go to explain how this could have contributed to the current warming.

The amount of lying that has been done around this research is astounding. The National Post actually put out the headline "Science is settled".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a long way to go to explain how this could have contributed to the current warming.

The amount of lying that has been done around this research is astounding. The National Post actually put out the headline "Science is settled".

But Michael - WHAT current warming. There's been nothing for 15 years. Remember what Kevin Trenberth said in 2009?

"It's "travesty" that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment."

Remember - scientists haven't proven what amount of warming can be attributed to CO2 - they just know that it has the capacity to affect climate. They just don't know what else could cause excessive warming other than CO2 - that's the only thing they can feed into their models to make things "work". Well, now they have to start paying more serious attention to cosmic rays and clouds - instead of arbitrarily brushing them off as insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Michael - WHAT current warming. There's been nothing for 15 years. Remember what Kevin Trenberth said in 2009?

"It's "travesty" that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment."

I'm not sure about 15 years, but let's move on.

Remember - scientists haven't proven what amount of warming can be attributed to CO2 - they just know that it has the capacity to affect climate. They just don't know what else could cause excessive warming other than CO2 - that's the only thing they can feed into their models to make things "work". Well, now they have to start paying more serious attention to cosmic rays and clouds - instead of arbitrarily brushing them off as insignificant.

They do know what can cause warming - solar cycles, El Nino type weather cycles are a few of these. They don't arbitrarily brush them off as insignificant either - the cosmic ray theory has been pursued by climate scientists who are skeptical of AGW. So these ideas are treated seriously, but the cycles aren't correlated at all to temperatures yet, so there's a way to go.

I'm all for putting media under the microscope, but the National Post headline should really be called out as a falsehood by conscientious skeptics who decry bad science from the pro-AGW advocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is... the science is under such a microscope... we have set such a high standard for providing the elements of debate that I believe we can't accept pictures of iceberg melting and such observations.

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...