Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
powerstroke said:
Ah so id best look for a house at the north pole as im soon going to fry here in boiling hot stfling sun drenched dust bowl Cheshire.. f
king idiots they must think people are as daft as they are ....
They doking idiots they must think people are as daft as they are ....That's why they spend so much time here trying to make me see sense.
if they could, I would
but don't hold your breath
powerstroke said:
nelly1 said:
It turns out that all life on Earth is slowly migrating towards the poles and up the Mountains, where it's cooler.
Link...
It doesn't look good for the poor species already living there...
Ah so id best look for a house at the north pole as im soon going to fry here in boiling hot stfling sun drenched dust bowl Cheshire.. fLink...
It doesn't look good for the poor species already living there...
Unsensationalist BBC Article said:
But what about the animals that already live at the poles, or at the top of mountains?
"They die"
And, of course, it's happening "faster than previously thought"..."They die"
king idiots they must think people are as daft as they are ....Luxury appartment with sea views at the Dudley Riviera anyone?
You know what, I'm fking sick of the BBC, I wish it would just fk off and die, sure it used to be a shining beacon of British civility and the voice of reason but now? now it's a pitiful excuse of its former self, unable to compete with 3 Indians bombing round Birmingham in a car to report on the riots, outshadowed by everyone else when it comes to proper reportage and so biased it makes you blush. Not a single political, economic or environmental topic can be broadcast without them trying to get their 'message' across, they just can't help themselves...well fk em, if the whole sorry plot folded tomorrow I wouldn't miss a beat, fk em
king sick of the BBC, I wish it would just fk off and die, sure it used to be a shining beacon of British civility and the voice of reason but now? now it's a pitiful excuse of its former self, unable to compete with 3 Indians bombing round Birmingham in a car to report on the riots, outshadowed by everyone else when it comes to proper reportage and so biased it makes you blush. Not a single political, economic or environmental topic can be broadcast without them trying to get their 'message' across, they just can't help themselves...well fk em, if the whole sorry plot folded tomorrow I wouldn't miss a beat, fk emApache said:
You know what, I'm fking sick of the BBC, I wish it would just fk off and die, sure it used to be a shining beacon of British civility and the voice of reason but now? now it's a pitiful excuse of its former self, unable to compete with 3 Indians bombing round Birmingham in a car to report on the riots, outshadowed by everyone else when it comes to proper reportage and so biased it makes you blush. Not a single political, economic or environmental topic can be broadcast without them trying to get their 'message' across, they just can't help themselves...well fk em, if the whole sorry plot folded tomorrow I wouldn't miss a beat, fk em
+1 king sick of the BBC, I wish it would just fk off and die, sure it used to be a shining beacon of British civility and the voice of reason but now? now it's a pitiful excuse of its former self, unable to compete with 3 Indians bombing round Birmingham in a car to report on the riots, outshadowed by everyone else when it comes to proper reportage and so biased it makes you blush. Not a single political, economic or environmental topic can be broadcast without them trying to get their 'message' across, they just can't help themselves...well fk em, if the whole sorry plot folded tomorrow I wouldn't miss a beat, fk emWell said chap. They are fast becoming an irrelevant disgrace, and a damn costly one at that.
AND ANOTHER THING, it would free up the airwaves, the fkers have monopolised the bloody lot, even local radio is BBC lite with every county up and down the country playing the same jingles, the same playlists and the same fking deadhead DJs, CHris Moyles, saviour of fking what exactly..and why is that Steve Wright still alive?
kers have monopolised the bloody lot, even local radio is BBC lite with every county up and down the country playing the same jingles, the same playlists and the same fking deadhead DJs, CHris Moyles, saviour of fking what exactly..and why is that Steve Wright still alive?Sorry but to bring the topic a little bit on-track (I agree about the BBC postings BTW)
Breaking news CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds.
Breaking news CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds.
DieselGriff said:
Sorry but to bring the topic a little bit on-track (I agree about the BBC postings BTW)
Breaking news CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds.
Thanks - and as expected.Breaking news CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds.
We can't expect too much as those guys were forbidden by their boss from talking about the implications of the result i.e. another nail in the AGW coffin. Even so the New Scientist angle really is taking the psss but not unexpected from this once fine publication. Others already got the message about NS...
Indeed so. The space reserved by modellers to be occupied by tax gas, and inflated overall positive feedback (not) arising, just shrunk dramatically. Junkscience by design against the data was never going to reflect reality.
Add in auroral oval eruptivity forcing and it's pretty much squeezed out, dead in the water, which agrees with the data. Hang on I can't say 'dead in the water' or some warmist will accuse me of ocean acidification
Stand by to see nothing by way of appropriate analysis in the msm. As previous posts have indicated, the scientists have been gagged and can't officially discuss the implications of this result.
Welcome back to the future of 'science' but not as we know it captain.
Add in auroral oval eruptivity forcing and it's pretty much squeezed out, dead in the water, which agrees with the data. Hang on I can't say 'dead in the water' or some warmist will accuse me of ocean acidification
Stand by to see nothing by way of appropriate analysis in the msm. As previous posts have indicated, the scientists have been gagged and can't officially discuss the implications of this result.
Welcome back to the future of 'science' but not as we know it captain.
From the BBC article
Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained.
Guess they're going to keep pushing that message.
Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained.
Guess they're going to keep pushing that message.
Phil1 said:
From the BBC article
Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained.
Guess they're going to keep pushing that message.
So on the one hand, they tell us that they are so conident that they not everything in order to tell us that 'the science is settled', but on the other hand, they're not quite sure they know what it is yet......Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained.
Guess they're going to keep pushing that message.
And they wonder why people have been turned off.............
turbobloke said:
Even so the New Scientist angle really is taking the psss but not unexpected from this once fine publication. Others already got the message about NS...
Sadly can't see your pic @ work, such sites are banned!I'm absolutely stunned by the NS article. Shoddy would be high praise for it.
DieselGriff said:
Sorry but to bring the topic a little bit on-track (I agree about the BBC postings BTW)
Breaking news CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds.
The results were expected to show that a while ago. But the Head Honcho has put a gagging order on His staff.....................Breaking news CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds.
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9...
"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."
Ah - I see Turbs has spotted that in the very next post. Still a link is above.
dickymint said:
The results were expected to show that a while ago. But the Head Honcho has put a gagging order on His staff.....................
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9...
"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."
Ah - I see Turbs has spotted that in the very next post. Still a link is above.
Oh yes, as soon as that statement was released we all knew that the results would be positive (from a sceptic POV).https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9...
"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."
Ah - I see Turbs has spotted that in the very next post. Still a link is above.
Real Climate said:
The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…
...All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere...
...In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
...All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere...
...In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
turbobloke said:
RealClimate don't think it's much to write home about.
kerplunk said:
Real Climate said:
The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…
...All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere...
...In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
...All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere...
...In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
turbobloke said:
RealClimate don't think it's much to write home about.
Still cherry picking, just can't kick the habit?!
RC
"This paper is actually remarkably free of over-the-top spin"
Translation
"In case a few subnormal readers don't know about the ban on interpretation, we'll pretend that the results aren't subject to a management veto on interpretation, in order to make a hypocritical point about spin"
Then the head of steam picks up.
RC continues by commenting on the 'banned' Svensmark interpretation:
"However, aerosol nucleation experiments are not usually front page news, and the likely high public profile of this paper is only loosely related to the science that is actually being done. Rather, the excitement is based on the expectation that this work will provide some insight into the proposed cosmic ray/cloud/climate link that Svensmark (for instance) has claimed is the dominant driver of climate change"
RC finishes by forgetting (again) about the energy profile of cosmic rays:
"Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been."
RC concludes:
"Thus the nucleation change as a result of real world GCR modulation is going to be much smaller than seen in these experiments"
Yet
- this is based on a 'rough' calculation which is not specified or explained fully (only the originator is given, see below)
- it looks at overall CR flux changes over a solar cycle rather than 15+ GeV variation
- and it's not clear what impact this has: "The other intriguing finding is that aerosol nucleation rates in the chamber don’t match (by a an order of magnitude or more) actual formation rates seen in real world near-surface atmospheric layers at realistic temperatures (only in unrealistically cold conditions do rates come close)."
Yet RC also say: "A rough calculation (by way of Jeff Pierce) that takes into account the square root dependence of ion concentrations on GCRs and the neutral nucleation in the CLOUD results, suggests that for average conditions the solar modulation of GCR would impact nucleation by about 1% – rising to perhaps 12% for the biggest changes in GCR seen in figure 2 at very cold temperatures."
So the 'real world' nucleation conditions actually mimic, for reasons other than very cold temperatures, the 'unrealistic cold' result of the experiment, which was dismissed. It's also pertinent that neutral nucleation is mentioned alone, fine, but then an appropriate remark concerning ion-induced nucleation would be in order.
Garbled gobbledigook never looked less convincing, and by design you have to navigate the obfuscation to see what is and isn't being said. Those readers unfamiliar with the processes will be fed the usual fodder while not realising what just happened. As we can see on here
Having seen what Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt think, being neutral souls with no vested interest in manmadeup warming, some balance here via Dr Benny Peiser.
CERN Finds "Significant" Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect
Best known for its studies of the fundamental constituents of matter, the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva is now also being used to study the climate. Researchers in the CLOUD collaboration have released the first results from their experiment designed to mimic conditions in the Earth's atmosphere. By firing beams of particles from the lab's Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, they have discovered that cosmic rays could have a role to play in climate by enhancing the production of potentially cloud-seeding aerosols.
Physics World, 24 August 2011
CERN’s CLOUD experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant” one according to CERN.
David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 25 August 2011
Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.
Nigel Calder, 24 August 2011
If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal.
Terry Sloan, BBC News, 03 April 2008
Not least as the Svensmark mechanism isn't the only solar eruptivity mechanism omitted wilfully by the IPCC, with Bucha's auroral oval mechanism included, an entirely different process, there is no room for tax gas whatsoever.
Which is what the data shows as there is no visible causal signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxide in tglobal climate data.
CERN Finds "Significant" Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect
Best known for its studies of the fundamental constituents of matter, the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva is now also being used to study the climate. Researchers in the CLOUD collaboration have released the first results from their experiment designed to mimic conditions in the Earth's atmosphere. By firing beams of particles from the lab's Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, they have discovered that cosmic rays could have a role to play in climate by enhancing the production of potentially cloud-seeding aerosols.
Physics World, 24 August 2011
CERN’s CLOUD experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant” one according to CERN.
David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 25 August 2011
Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.
Nigel Calder, 24 August 2011
If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal.
Terry Sloan, BBC News, 03 April 2008
Not least as the Svensmark mechanism isn't the only solar eruptivity mechanism omitted wilfully by the IPCC, with Bucha's auroral oval mechanism included, an entirely different process, there is no room for tax gas whatsoever.
Which is what the data shows as there is no visible causal signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxide in tglobal climate data.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff