|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 1:35:57 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 ? Lockwood was the same guy who in 2007, miraculously just before a major U.N. Conference on "climate change", declared his paper was the final nail in the coffin for solar/climate link, and was very much publicized and of course politicized. 'No Sun link' to climate change Then three years later he had an epiphany. Low solar activity link to cold UK winters Anything these pukes like Lockwood, Trenberth and the rest say isn't worth giving the time of day for.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 5, 2011 2:10:59 GMT
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 ? Lockwood was the same guy who in 2007, miraculously just before a major U.N. Conference on "climate change", declared his paper was the final nail in the coffin for solar/climate link, and was very much publicized and of course politicized. 'No Sun link' to climate change Then three years later he had an epiphany. Low solar activity link to cold UK winters Anything these pukes like Lockwood, Trenberth and the rest say isn't worth giving the time of day for. Spot on Magellan. I remember Lockwood saying that about the Sun with that 2007 paper; which of course was nothing but more AGW ideology disguised as "science" in failed attempts to take the Sun out of the climate equation. It is not surprising to see the 180-degree turn as the physics of the matter continue to prove that the Sun is the main player driving Earth's climate.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 5, 2011 6:48:33 GMT
Lockwood was the same guy who in 2007, miraculously just before a major U.N. Conference on "climate change", declared his paper was the final nail in the coffin for solar/climate link, and was very much publicized and of course politicized. 'No Sun link' to climate change Then three years later he had an epiphany. Low solar activity link to cold UK winters Anything these pukes like Lockwood, Trenberth and the rest say isn't worth giving the time of day for. The take-home is that the sun can affect weather, but changes in the sun have been going in the opposite direction of the climate since the 80s, so it is illogical to think that the sun caused the observed climate change.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 5, 2011 6:59:49 GMT
The original theory was that the sun had caused the "global warming" and the Lockwood study showed that the metrics used by the theory's proponents had reduced while "global warming" had continued.
The original theory was wrong. End of story. Insulting Lockwood doesn't really do anything for your argument, magellan.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 5, 2011 9:50:41 GMT
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.
Well that far surpasses any laboratory evidence of the super insulative effects of trace CO2!!!!!!
Quantification of CO2 effects are purely based on theory.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 5, 2011 10:34:19 GMT
The take-home is that the sun can affect weather, but changes in the sun have been going in the opposite direction of the climate since the 80s, so it is illogical to think that the sun caused the observed climate change.
Since you admit the sun can effect weather; to estimate the rapidity of expected change you have to provide a quantified argument that includes the various rates of change and a supportable estimate of system momentum.
The latter requirement absolutely prohibits you from doing that. Climate science in an ill advised exclusive focus on CO2 has really done nothing to estimate system momentum beyond approaches used in GCMs and stuff like what Spencer does. The research needed to expand on that simply does not exist and one has to resort to mathematical analysis to make guesses.
Those non-empirical approaches can get folks grouping together like lemmings when drivers are all going in one direction.
But when drivers change direction you get the disparity between warmists and skeptics like Spencer.
Warmists claim the reason is aerosols and some skeptics agree and are looking for the mechanism in GCR change, which has brought us back to the sun while the warmists just throw their hands in the air for an explanation as they reject that notion. Though the sun may have other effects like these recently discovered magnetic portals modifying convection, like magnetics affect convection on the sun.
Clearly all gaps are rapidly closing. 1) Solar peaked in 1987; 2) conventional means of estimating system momentum would suggest a delay in the peak to 1994 or 1997 due to overly simplified mathmatical means of estimating upper ocean response times. (7 to 10 years) 3) Warmists are pooh poohing 8 years of system cooling as "random noise"; leaving a mere gap of 6 years for solar activity to close (1997 to 2003)
When we consider then that might imply 16 years for system momentum versus the simplified estimates of 7 to 10 years lets do a simple mathematical analysis of the situation.
Spencer claims a sensitivity of 1.2 based on IPCC driver assumptions and the IPCC claims a 3.0 sensitivity. So lets say IPCC is right and the reason they are right is they underestimated time to equilibrium and Spencer did everything else right but missed that to, making IPCC right on overall sensitivity but Spencer right on what should be expected in 7 years from observations.
So the factor is 3.0/1.2. . . .or 2.5. 7 years times 2.5 equals 17.5 years for system momentum. Wow! The 1987 solar peak plus 17.5 takes us to 2005!
With solar inactivity only becoming relatively high from about 2007 on we should expect cooling taking place by 2007 plus 17.5 years or 2025 assuming solar activity stays low and we are now at solar maximum with the subsequent cycle also well under 100. (in other words we need 17.5 years of accumulated cooling to see its maximum effects)
There probably will be El Ninos and maybe even a record year, but a record year won't approach the record breaking "margin" of 1998 or its subsequent .2degC step change as modelers are estimating for the next decade.
Seems we only need to close the disparity between Spencer and the IPCC, observations versus models! Hardly seems to be any room for ruling solar out at this point in time. In fact it appears to be completely consistent with the range of observations and modeling we have seen as to time for system adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 5, 2011 11:17:44 GMT
Lockwood was the same guy who in 2007, miraculously just before a major U.N. Conference on "climate change", declared his paper was the final nail in the coffin for solar/climate link, and was very much publicized and of course politicized. 'No Sun link' to climate change Then three years later he had an epiphany. Low solar activity link to cold UK winters Anything these pukes like Lockwood, Trenberth and the rest say isn't worth giving the time of day for. The take-home is that the sun can affect weather, but changes in the sun have been going in the opposite direction of the climate since the 80s, so it is illogical to think that the sun caused the observed climate change. When are you going to quit with this bullshit common sense? It is amazing for you to make such statements (among others that have no logic) that it is "illogical to think that the sun caused the observed climate change." The Sun does more that simply "affect weather" - it drives the Earth's entire climate and without it - there would be no "weather" because there would be no climate. The Sun has a surface temperature of 9,980 °F (5,526 °C) and radiates lots of infrared along with the diversity of its spectrum of light and cosmic rays that fill the Earth with life. Without the Sun - everyone would be dead. The extreme cold of outer space is at -454.8 degrees Fahrenheit (270 degrees Celsius or 2.7 Kelvin.) Without the Sun, the entire Earth would turn into a solid - a planetary ball of ice and everything would die. Period. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 15:11:27 GMT
The original theory was that the sun had caused the "global warming" and the Lockwood study showed that the metrics used by the theory's proponents had reduced while "global warming" had continued. The original theory was wrong. End of story. Insulting Lockwood doesn't really do anything for your argument, magellan. It was called the "final nail in the coffin". That was the END OF STORY and I recall the details of his press conference clearly. It was used as a political tool, no question. Trenberth did the very same thing in his pronouncement concerning hurricanes which led to Chris Landsea resigning. Their tactics are scum, and I don't care if you like that description or not. So here we have an actual experiment, which your side for the last several years said was missing. We were told there was no mechanism proven to exist. We were told Svensmark was wrong. Leif Svalgaard's reason for existence at WUWT was to denigrate and insult Svensmark and "his ilk". Your side was wrong. END OF STORY.
|
|
|
Post by madgit on Sept 5, 2011 20:21:20 GMT
here here magellan funny how steve says Insulting Lockwood doesn't really do anything for your argument the man was wrong steve deal with it..
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 5, 2011 21:30:21 GMT
Well that far surpasses any laboratory evidence of the super insulative effects of trace CO2!!!!!! Quantification of CO2 effects are purely based on theory. Please link to anything anywhere that purports CO2 to being super insulating, or even more than modestly "insulating". Your second statement is just plain wrong. Many real-world experiments dating back over 100 years have been done on CO2's effects. This is from Wiki: "Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[4] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour."
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 21:31:39 GMT
Well that far surpasses any laboratory evidence of the super insulative effects of trace CO2!!!!!! Quantification of CO2 effects are purely based on theory. Please link to anything anywhere that purports CO2 to being super insulating, or even more than modestly "insulating". Your second statement is just plain wrong. Many real-world experiments dating back over 100 years have been done on CO2's effects. This is from Wiki: "Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[4] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour." Here we go, Wikipedia again.... Does the Greenhouse effect behave like that of a real glass greenhouse?
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 5, 2011 21:38:19 GMT
Without the Sun - everyone would be dead. Your entire post (along with 99% of your other posts) boils down to the above statement along with the conclusion that since the sun exists, all climate and all weather on Earth is due solely to changes in the sun. I could retort with equal logic that the Earth's core exists, and so all weather and all climate is due solely to changes in the Earth's core. You're being completely illogical.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 5, 2011 21:47:03 GMT
Please link to anything anywhere that purports CO2 to being super insulating, or even more than modestly "insulating". Your second statement is just plain wrong. Many real-world experiments dating back over 100 years have been done on CO2's effects. This is from Wiki: "Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[4] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour." Here we go, Wikipedia again.... Magellen, for this sort of reference, Wikipedia is a fine source. To add to the discussion, you'd have to post some other source which says the experiment didn't occur. Since obviously it did, you're just being _____. If you want to actually contribute to the discussion, instead of just tossing ____, then post a cite which says that all the scientific work over the last 100+ years didn't occur. Until then, be quiet. You're only embarrassing yourself.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 21:59:10 GMT
Here we go, Wikipedia again.... Magellen, for this sort of reference, Wikipedia is a fine source. To add to the discussion, you'd have to post some other source which says the experiment didn't occur. Since obviously it did, you're just being _____. If you want to actually contribute to the discussion, instead of just tossing ____, then post a cite which says that all the scientific work over the last 100+ years didn't occur. Until then, be quiet. You're only embarrassing yourself. Does the GHE behave like that of a real glass greenhouse? It should be be very easy to locate a replication of Arrhenius' experiment then right? We shall see just who will embarrass who
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 5, 2011 22:05:19 GMT
Since you admit the sun can effect weather; to estimate the rapidity of expected change you have to provide a quantified argument that includes the various rates of change and a supportable estimate of system momentum.
The latter requirement absolutely prohibits you from doing that. Climate science in an ill advised exclusive focus on CO2 has really done nothing to estimate system momentum beyond approaches used in GCMs and stuff like what Spencer does.Weather isn't climate. Transient changes in volcanoes, the sun, and everything else affects weather. They all fade into the background quickly. Sustained changes are another matter. Your comment about an ill-advised exclusive focus on CO2 is just a strawman which detracts from the conversation. You colour yourself badly by saying such a thing. Nobody anywhere in the scientific community has such a stance. The rest of your post hinges on: 1) Solar peaked in 1987;This is incorrect. Solar peaked in 1958 and has been declining ever since. If your lag theory were to be correct, then the forcing to be reckoned with is half a decade ago. Such a long lag time is not plausible. In fact, the dip (solar cycle 20), which led you to erroneously say that solar peaked in 1987, would actually foreshorten the lag time!
|
|