|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 24, 2011 21:13:32 GMT
"BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds" "Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this: “Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].” It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed CERN result is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper." wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/ |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 24, 2011 21:35:00 GMT
So 0/10 for WUWT reporting yet again
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 24, 2011 21:50:44 GMT
"BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds" "Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this: “Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].” It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed CERN result is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper." wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/After Socold's 'substantive' comment on the matter, choosing to focus on the messenger of WUWT, rather than the important message, what we seem to have here (again) is a failure to communicate. The point is this - It is the Sun, and all that it does, that drives the Earth's climate and weather. The Earth is not a closed climate system, but an open one, so it is not a surprise to me that these findings on cosmic rays confirm the overwhelming evidence from a wide variety of scientific data that the Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 24, 2011 22:25:35 GMT
There was little to be said for Calder's blatant spin of the paper at the behest of the GWPF and Anthony Watt's willingness to accommodate that spin on his blog. Watts did have the option to report the story from a reliable source, but he chose Calder. Why? The only honest reason to forward Calder's view is if Anthony thought it was a good summary.
Yet there are big clues in Anthony's post that suggest he realizes Calder's reporting of the paper is garbage.
Anthony Watts: "Update: From the Nature article, Kirkby is a bit more muted in his assessment than the GWPF:"
A bit more muted? Compare and contrast:
Kirkby, lead author of the paper: "“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,”"
Title of Calder's piece: "CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change."
Complete opposites.
Now given that Watts is just reposting Calder's own post, notice the strange yet subtle difference between Calder's post title and the WUWT post title which is: "BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds"
Why didn't Anthony Watt's use Calder's title? I argue it's because Anthony Watt's knew Calder's title was wrong. And yet Calder's title accurately represents Calder's argument in which he writes about the study as if it confirms cosmic rays influence the climate, in direct opposition to the paper's authors own words. So I think Anthony knows Calder's post is rubbish.
The awkward question then is why did he repost it? Maybe he has some kind of deal with the GWPF to print their output. I don't know.
Personally I think you should have just trusted me when I said "So 0/10 for WUWT reporting". I mean are you really happier to know why I've gone into why I concluded that?
I don't see why if you think the Sun causes climate change you would therefore expect that to be manifested through cosmic rays. Especially given cosmic rays correlate very poorly with recent warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 24, 2011 22:42:45 GMT
There was little to be said for Calder's blatant spin of the paper at the behest of the GWPF and Anthony Watt's willingness to accommodate that spin on his blog. Watts did have the option to report the story from a reliable source, but he chose Calder. Why? The only honest reason to forward Calder's view is if Anthony thought it was a good summary. Yet there are big clues in Anthony's post that suggest he realizes Calder's reporting of the paper is garbage. Anthony Watts: "Update: From the Nature article, Kirkby is a bit more muted in his assessment than the GWPF:" A bit more muted? Compare and contrast: Kirkby, lead author of the paper: "“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,”" Title of Calder's piece: "CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change." Complete opposites. Now given that Watts is just reposting Calder's own post, notice the strange yet subtle difference between Calder's post title and the WUWT post title which is: "BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds" Why didn't Anthony Watt's use Calder's title? I argue it's because Anthony Watt's knew Calder's title was wrong. And yet Calder's title accurately represents Calder's argument in which he writes about the study as if it confirms cosmic rays influence the climate, in direct opposition to the paper's authors own words. So I think Anthony knows Calder's post is rubbish. The awkward question then is why did he repost it? Maybe he has some kind of deal with the GWPF to print their output. I don't know. Personally I think you should have just trusted me when I said "So 0/10 for WUWT reporting". I mean are you really happier to know why I've gone into why I concluded that? I don't see why if you think the Sun causes climate change you would therefore expect that to be manifested through cosmic rays. Especially given cosmic rays correlate very poorly with recent warming. Well the fact of the matter is that you go on and on about WUWT when what I see is that you're trying any which way but up to see what has been really going down in the politics within climate science and this includes the AGW drug pushers on all the boards. As for the Sun - Socold, it is a no-brainer that the Sun - yes, and its cosmic rays - directly impact the earth. Whether the cosmic rays 'correlate very poorly with recent warming' isn't the final say by far on the matter since that premise often comes from people who are dismissive of the Sun as if it is a near-non-factor. This my point of people trying to squeeze their ideology into climate science but who deny the basic physical laws that regulate the Earth's climate. Rather than nickel-and-dime things - why not exercise your mind more fully and accept the truth? Without the Sun all is lost, so you should respect these findings as confirming what is already self-evident to those with open eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 24, 2011 23:42:12 GMT
From the link  "A graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011" |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 25, 2011 0:57:28 GMT
There was little to be said for Calder's blatant spin of the paper at the behest of the GWPF and Anthony Watt's willingness to accommodate that spin on his blog. Watts did have the option to report the story from a reliable source, but he chose Calder. Why? The only honest reason to forward Calder's view is if Anthony thought it was a good summary. Yet there are big clues in Anthony's post that suggest he realizes Calder's reporting of the paper is garbage. Anthony Watts: "Update: From the Nature article, Kirkby is a bit more muted in his assessment than the GWPF:" A bit more muted? Compare and contrast: Kirkby, lead author of the paper: "“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,”" Title of Calder's piece: "CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change." Complete opposites. Now given that Watts is just reposting Calder's own post, notice the strange yet subtle difference between Calder's post title and the WUWT post title which is: "BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds" Why didn't Anthony Watt's use Calder's title? I argue it's because Anthony Watt's knew Calder's title was wrong. And yet Calder's title accurately represents Calder's argument in which he writes about the study as if it confirms cosmic rays influence the climate, in direct opposition to the paper's authors own words. So I think Anthony knows Calder's post is rubbish. The awkward question then is why did he repost it? Maybe he has some kind of deal with the GWPF to print their output. I don't know. Personally I think you should have just trusted me when I said "So 0/10 for WUWT reporting". I mean are you really happier to know why I've gone into why I concluded that? I don't see why if you think the Sun causes climate change you would therefore expect that to be manifested through cosmic rays. Especially given cosmic rays correlate very poorly with recent warming. The next thing you'll say is nobody ever said GCR didn't seed clouds , when in fact the progression of this issue was from day one that Svensmark was a kook and his research was crap. It won't be difficult to locate. You sir are disingenuous and appear to be desperate. It's funny that Hansen can come out and make absurd statements you defend. How's his Super El Nino going this year? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 25, 2011 7:36:32 GMT
"The next thing you'll say is nobody ever said GCR didn't seed clouds"
The paper doesn't show they do!
This is Calder's spin again. The "graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material" conspiracy theory of Calder's is yet more ridiculous spin. Basically the grand hype that Calder makes that the paper (and that diagram) shows that cosmic rays affect cloud formation which affects climate is false. That's why the graph isn't foremost, because it isn't showing the revelation Calder thinks it is.
And anyway even Calder's conspiracy makes no sense. If "they" wanted to hide the graph why publish it at all? Calder's conspiracy doesn't make a jot of sense. Not to mention that he's effectively accusing the paper authors of dishonesty while simultaneously basing his entire argument on their science (even though he's got it wrong). Makes not a bit of sense.
Hansen didn't predict a super el nino, he predicted a strong el nino and that was based on the GISS ENSO model (which got the 2010 el nino right). ENSO is hard to predict. I mean WUWT can talk, it's predictions on arctic summer minimum sea ice have been dreadful both last year and this year. We've already passed what WUWT was predicting back in June for september average.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 25, 2011 9:20:27 GMT
Since I set up a cloud chamber and observed the tracks generated by alpha particles more than 20 years ago I and any other person with a reasonable physics education knows that GCRs *could* seed clouds. The question is whether they seed enough clouds and whether their effect in addition to all the other myriad causes of cloud seeding are significant such that the variation in cosmic rays is important.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 25, 2011 23:10:43 GMT
So 0/10 for WUWT reporting yet againThat is remarkably stupid and incorrect, even for you. If you had said that for New Scientist and their sad spin, that wold have been clever. But you did not miss that chance to miss a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 26, 2011 9:52:48 GMT
hunter,
As I lurk through Climate Etc comments, your job seems to be to insult and smear any non-sceptic and then complain if you perceive a non-sceptic insulting and smearing a sceptic.
Your love for Dr Curry must be awfully conflicted as she veers between advocating doubt and uncertainy on the one hand and dismissing sky dragon slayers and various deluded emeritus professors on the other. Perhaps the conflict is what gives you the thrill?
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 31, 2011 2:17:49 GMT
"CLOUD And The Cosmic Ray Climate Change Blow Up" "When I saw some preliminary results in Nature about CERN's CLOUD experiment a while ago, I didn't regard it as interesting enough to write about. Seriously, does anyone not think the Sun impacts the climate by now?"  "It is simply science at work - finally, after a decade and a half of circling the wagons, hypotheses that were dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense by zealots get a chance to live or die by the scientific method and not by aggressive posturing. Yes, these results introduce more questions than they answer, but claiming the issue was 'settled' did a lot more harm than good in implementing a responsible policy decision so it's time to try science. If Heuer is simply the herald of a new age in climate research, where all participants are not 'interpreting' early results and publishing media talking points as fact six months before studies are released, that's good for everyone. The IPCC has had a disastrous decade so far and more rigor and less framing will be good for the entire world, perhaps physicists at the LHC are just the group to show them how things should be done." www.science20.com/science_20/cloud_and_cosmic_ray_climate_change_blow-82089 |
|
drtee
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by drtee on Sept 4, 2011 15:19:06 GMT
Kirkby, et. al 's experiment needs to be be expanded to see just what the rate of increase in nucleation size particle production really is. The graphic from the supplemental material is intriguing but only goes to 7e3 particles /mL. There seems to be a very rapid change in the particle creation when the simulated GCR's were added to the experiment. Kirkby, probably correctly, is downplaying predictions to get the funds for future work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Sept 4, 2011 18:56:40 GMT
"BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds" "Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this: In 2008 a BBC Feature Article cited the work of 3 prominent British Physicists, Terry Sloan, Mike Lockwood and Niles Harrison who produced work discreditting Svensmark Hypothesis that GCR fluctuation influences cloud development. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7327393.stmDoes this research address those criticisms ? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2011 19:10:13 GMT
Bob:
One of the things that the three didn't discuss, which is very important, is that even tho the sun was declining, the level that it was declining from was much stronger than observed for 100's of years.
Cloud cover of the earth was basically flat as far as trend till the mid 2000's. The data now show a slight increase in cloud cover. Can this be tied to the solar min? I don't know, but it does suggest a correlation. Temp trends of the past decade indicate that the cloud cover increae is prob real.
I always take new research with a grain of salt until it is confirmed by further research.
|
|
