Feeds

back to article CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised. The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Thumb Down

You missed a bit.

"Our work leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate. However, at this stage, there is absolutely no way we can say that they do," said Kirkby.

22
2
Bronze badge
Happy

It's an experiment...

It's an experiment that supports a theory that has been largely ignored or dismissed by climate scientists, and that in itself is significant. Of course the experiment doesn't *prove* anything - yet. But it lends support to the idea that there's more than one influence on climate, and that the 'consensus' don't yet have it all mapped out, despite assurances from the IPCC.

My main concern is that the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is the only significant driver of climate change has, like the big banks, become too important to be allowed to fail. There are too many politicians, scientists, corporations and NGOs that have nailed their colours (and our money) to the AGW mast.

It will take a lot of evidence overturn the consensus, But that's how it should be.

8
2
Joke

@Some Beggar

Worst still he doesn't end with '...but more research is required' - how can he hope to be taken seriously without this thinly disguised request for more funding?

0
1
FAIL

@Steve Crook

"My main concern is that the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is the only significant driver of climate change has, like the big banks, become too important to be allowed to fail. There are too many politicians, scientists, corporations and NGOs that have nailed their colours (and our money) to the AGW mast."

That is my feeling as well - too many vested interests receiving too much money BUT only if they /support/ the anthropogenic CO2 angle.

icon is for the narrow minded "it must be CO2 and nothing else brigade"

3
1
Silver badge

At 10 times more production than anticipated,

there's NO way they couldn't have an impact on climate models. But when your BOSS tells you to put a political slant on your paper, you do what you're told or you get booted and derided.

1
0

Vested interests

Oooh conspiracy theories! Yay!

There's a vast amount of short-term profit to be derived by some people from *denying* anthropogenic climate change. Fossil fuel companies, politicians who want to soft-soap their electorate into believing droughts and hurricanes are the work of a gay-hating God (or something), that sort of thing.

Not many real scientists stand to make $$$$$$ from confirming/refining the current climate change models. They might make $$$$$$$$$$ from Big Business if they deny it. Otherwise, they just earn their salaries like everyone else.

It is saddening to see the Reg, usually fairly sensible, on the side of denialists.

8
7
Silver badge

@Anarchic-teapot

It's not about supporting fossil fuel companies, it's about keeping electricity affordable for people besides the wealthy, so that more can partake of the benefits of civilisation. If you climate change believers have your way, the only sources of power will be wind, hydro and solar - which will NOT generate enough power to service anyone other than millionaires. Already in Australia electricity prices have become so prohibitive that there are now around 18,000 households (not people, *households*), that cook on open fires and light their homes with oil lamps and candles because they cannot afford electricity any more. That's the world you AGW faithful are creating.

Add to that the increasing body of evidence that climate change is continuous throughout Earth's history and that our contribution to it is minimal at best, and the claims of the climate change believers begin to wear increasingly thin.

2
1
Facepalm

FUD

"Already in Australia electricity prices have become so prohibitive that there are now around 18,000 households (not people, *households*), that cook on open fires and light their homes with oil lamps and candles because they cannot afford electricity any more."

WTF is this rubbish. As someone who actually lives in Australia, I can tell you the rise in electricity prices is almost entirely due to privatisation and lack of investment in new capacity -- we have no carbon tax/emissions scheme (yet).

And as for those 18,000 households cooking on open fires, I suggest you subtract out the 140,0000 NT/WA aborigines. Generation cost has nothing to do with it, living in the middle of nowhere does.

As for the substance of the article, I'm still waiting for someone to show that cosmic rays have actually increased in the last 150 years. Until then you can't draw any conclusions either way.

0
0

Au contraire

On the contrary, US. scientists who espouse global warming will get most/all of the available research funding from gov't agencies. And many non-scientists have also made bundles--Al Gore has made millions from his cap and trade scam.

0
0
Terminator

They won't re-model!

It doesn't fit ACC pre-supposed conclusions why on Earth would they take it into account ?

12
9

They already are re-modelling.

Would you like to borrow some tin foil? Your appears to be leaking.

16
15
Anonymous Coward

Simples

To make sure it doesn't fit with your pre-supposed conclusions.

3
2
Mushroom

Climate Science hasn't been proper science for years it's become the new state broadcaster religion

and faith just doesn't need any facts. So CERN will find itself without any funding if it doesn't stop the heresy.

17
10
Silver badge
FAIL

Oh Nonsense

Firstly CERN has other projects it could be spending its time on, and will get research funding for.

Secondly, if they were in it for the cash, they'd just saddle up with BP and Shell and say there's no such thing and cash their cheque. There's more money in denial than in confirmation.

10
8
FAIL

you could not be more wrong if you tried

there are BILLIONS from all the suckers in politics to be milked by saying that man has warmed the planet and they are proposing fixes that cost in the trillions sorry but Shell doesn't have the kind of money or real power to give these people.

6
6
Headmaster

@Feralmonkey

Citation needed.

The most recent survey of researchers (in the US under the previous government) showed that researchers were _more_ likely to get funding for research that challenged the current consensus on climate change. And the average funding and salary figures for climate-related research weren't even in the top five.

The climate gravy train is a complete myth. If you want to get on a research gravy train then you go into pharmaceuticals, geology (for fossil fuel funding) or mathematics (for market modelling).

8
8
FAIL

oops - almost forgot this

you really need to check out who funds :

WWF

Greenpeace

UEA CRU

you will find all the big oil companies in the lists of donors.

However all AGW proponents boast about relieving funding from Governments (demonstrable biased in favour of CAGW) and those well know advocate groups like Greenpeace and WWF; Terri and many 'progressive' (translated means luddite) advocacy anti science organizations. Does this fact then automatically disqualify CAGW scientist from being allowed to report their research and findings; after all they are funded by organisations with massive interest in getting the 'right' result ?

2
0
Facepalm

Greenpeace funding science research?

Hahahaha.

Oh my sides.

1
2
Silver badge
FAIL

@ FeralMonkey

You're trying to tell me that a company with annual revenues in excess of 300 billion USD and at risk of losing pretty much all of it if we stop using so much oil doesnt have the cash to fund competing climate research. This is just Royal Dutch Shell.

Come on, we all know thats nonsense. The real money is in denial - Don't do any work, just say what the big companies that will "go away" if the pro warming science takes hold, cash cheque.

Its not like it will be the first time this has happened - or did you believe the cigarette companies when they said that smoking doesnt cause cancer?

2
0
Cog

Citation needed

linky?

0
0
Silver badge

@ COG

Royal Dutch Shell Performance:

http://www.annualreview.shell.com/2010/reviewoftheyear.php?cat=m

0
0
Mushroom

So it's the Sun?

Who'd have thought it.

/troll

16
6

clearly I'm missing something

This should explain

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/07/CosmicRays.png

so how have cosmic rays made so much difference again?

1
4
Trollface

Temperature data...

...I've seen it somewhere before, some "Al" showed it AFAICR

0
0
Holmes

Kirkby also said

and I quote:

"Our work leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate. However, at this stage, there is absolutely no way we can say that they do"

there's only one conclusion about climate change so far: we don't know what's going on

19
3
Silver badge
WTF?

Huh?

From the blog referenced in the article:

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.

-=-

The point is that besides this experiment there were other earlier experiments that also indicated that there were other non-man made factors which had a greater impact on the earth's climate.

While I would love to see less man made pollutants in the atmosphere, I never bought in to the theory that short of nukes, man was responsible for global warming. (Detonating nukes in an effort to create the same effects that a volcanic eruption would have.)

So to your point, yeah we do. But climate gate was all about bending the scientific research in an effort to get man to stop polluting the atmosphere.

17
14

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Mushroom

Re: Huh?

"It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along ... Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings..."

What? All the Danes or just a few people who happen to be Danish. Or do you have a fetish for Danes?

Sheesh! And that's my response to the more coherent part of your commentary.

3
5
Bronze badge

Re

"However, at this stage, there is absolutely no way we can say that they do"

Of course all the religious fanatics will jump on this phrase. What it means is that REAL scientists don't just say "yep that's how it works" until they have proper scientific data and experiments to support that. Correlation doesn't imply causation and all that.

You can tell the global warming religion isn't real science because they make claims that are not based in rigorous scientific fact. Not to mention the faked data and "models" that give whatever output they designed them to.

16
5
Anonymous Coward

what part

What part of "absolutely no way" don't you understand?

The religious fanatics are the climate deniers and their sun-worship who are all over the web spinning this study as proving some kind of cloud link to recent warming, even though the author is very clear that's wrong in the quote you disparage. There are several steps missing, just as there were before this paper.

4
13
FAIL

Spot on

Apart from the complete absence of fake data and the rather important point that models are designed to explain the *existing* data. If a model can't predict the past, it is not a good candidate for predicting the future.

I have an open mind on the subject of anthropogenic warming, but it is clear that there has been an active, well funded campaign to rubbish the idea, and that campaign does sometimes stray into being anti-science in general. No creationism here please!

4
1
Coat

Ac 13:04

alas I shall never play the Dane.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Oh Lordy

What part of "absolutely no way" don't you understand?

It's always as sad as it is amusing to watch someone who's got the wrong end of the stick gleefully waving it around :p

I read it as a jibe at 'scientists' who take the ball and run with it without looking, not realising they've actually picked up a turd; AGW-types, for instance.

0
1
Silver badge

Well

In the voice of Jeremy Clarkson - my next one will definitely be a V8 :)

7
1
g e
Silver badge

Mine already is :o)

Good job I don't believe anything spouted by scientists and quango's who's funding & existence tends to rely on spouting it...

6
7
Silver badge

@g e

"Good job I don't believe anything spouted by scientists"

What - like this research ?... or just those things you disagree with..

13
7
Gold badge

Peak oil

Regardless of if CO2 is causing climate change, there is only so much oil around and by increasing demand for it by driving large engined cars you're further ensuring that:

1. The price will sky rocket.

2. There will be a lot more wars in oil producing countries.

10
9
Silver badge

Is there a charitable scientist in the house?

'Good job I don't believe anything spouted by scientists and quango's who's funding & existence tends to rely on spouting it...'

Does this maxim also apply to say oncologists? seismologists? virologists?

The Daily Mail forums are next on the far right.

7
2
Silver badge

@Tim - I take no side in this discussion

But quote-mining people out of context is the mark of a Creationist.

5
8
Silver badge
FAIL

@Tim

Re-read "g e"'s post, this time look at the full sentence.

The important bit was "who's funding & existence tends to rely on spouting it"

Aside from the poor grammar, the point is very important.

If your livelihood depends on you agreeing with a pre-determined result, then you are very likely to ignore any evidence to the contrary, or even fudge the data and/or methodology to give the pre-determined answer.

Such fudging could be deliberate or a subconscious bias, but that doesn't really matter - the result is the same.

To give a trivial example:

The ASA requires that all adverts have 'evidence' to back up the claims made in the advert.

If a cosmetics company asked you to test a new cosmetic face cream for them, are you more likely to get paid and/or re-hired later for saying "This face cream is great" or "This face cream is the same as all the other face creams"?

So, unsurprisingly all these face cream tests done to support the advertising campaigns always deliberately fudge the methodology to make an "It's great" result more likely - eg no comparisons to other products, vague and leading survey questions (Is your skin softer now?) etc.

- If you've ever taken part in a street survey of a product you'll easily spot the way the questions are phrased to give the answer they want.

Back to the original context:

The majority of research into Climate Change is being done by groups who are being paid by organisations with a clear vested interest in one particular result. (This bias does swing both ways)

I don't think anybody seriously thinks that the climate isn't changing - the historical record is very clear on that - the bit that is contentious is the idea that humanity is a significant factor in causing it.

Personally, I'm very much in the "Not Proven" camp for the hypothesis that human-action is significant.

None of the published model results are believable (for or against), if only for the simple fact that none of them have error bars.

The world climate is known to be a chaotic system - therefore, to make a useful prediction you need to vary all the starting conditions in both directions and re-run the model for the full range of likely starting conditions, and the same again for any inputs that might change during the run (human CO2 output for example).

(Measuring chaotic systems is more complicated than that, but you get the general idea)

If you don't do that, you'll get one *possible* outcome, but have no idea of how probable that outcome actually is.

Nobody seems to be doing that - or at least, nobody seems to be publishing results showing the range and probability map of predictions their models make.

If you know where one of those is, I'd be really interested to see it.

18
1
Silver badge

@Greg J Preece : context

"But quote-mining people out of context is the mark of a Creationist."

Fair enough - although I thought the inference in the remark was directed at, inter alia, scientists who rely on reporting like this to maintain funding to continue their research - including the scientists behind this (rather interesting) report.. so I dropped the rest of the sentence, considering the remainder to be very much in context... but you make a good point. To emphasise the science bit, would this be better ?

----%< ----

"Good job I don't believe anything spouted by scientists ... who's funding & existence tends to rely on spouting it..."

What - like this research ?... or just those things you disagree with..

----%<----

Cheers

1
1
Silver badge

@Richard 12

"Re-read "g e"'s post, this time look at the full sentence.

The important bit was "who's funding & existence tends to rely on spouting it"

Aside from the poor grammar, the point is very important."

Indeed - and my comment remains - see my reply to Preece further down.

"If your livelihood depends on you agreeing with a pre-determined result, then you are very likely to ignore any evidence to the contrary"

Absolutely - which is why robust analysis of things is very important. I think, despite the hysteria and politico-economic meddling, that this *is* happening as far as the science itself is concerned. The IPCC spokespersons, in particular, have done absolutely no favours to anyone in playing with ridiculous headlines and portraying the current research as written in stone - there is a consensus, but there is also a lot of debate - that's the way it should be. I really don't buy into the "all climate science is tainted by greed" view of the world - I think that's particularly naive and disingenuous to most of the scientists involved. There will be die-hards in any debate, on any side, and those who wish to profit - science isn't a great place for the latter but there are some, I know from experience - but the situation is far from the simple black-and-white some folk would see it painted.

"The world climate is known to be a chaotic system .... (The world climate is known to be a chaotic system - therefore, to make a useful prediction you need to vary all the starting conditions in both directions and re-run the model for the full range of likely starting conditions, and the same again for any inputs that might change during the run (human CO2 output for example). Measuring chaotic systems is more complicated than that, but you get the general idea)"

I do indeed, a fair chunk of the end of my bachelors was spent looking at it them. My understanding of the analytical modelling is that it is the statistical measure of the (presumably non-pathological) outcomes - exactly as you discuss - but i'd have do dig into some papers to verify that on a case by case basis, so I can't back that up or use it as an solid argument at the moment - so let us just say for now that I would agree with you if the outcomes presented are the result of only single runs, but sincerely hope no-one is that stupid.

3
0
g e
Silver badge

Absolutely spot on.

Poor grammar? should that have been 'whose' instead of 'who's' ?

0
1
WTF?

@Richard 12

"If you know where one of those is, I'd be really interested to see it."

JFGSI

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=climate+chaotic+system&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZyVZFJGX5g

Hope this helps.

0
1
Bronze badge
Coat

Or possibly ...

"But quote-mining people out of context is the mark of a Creationist."

I thought it was the mark a journalist.

Same thing, come to that, devout followers of some belief that flies in the face of empirical evidence.

0
0
Holmes

100% agree with these statements - well put sir

"If your livelihood depends on you agreeing with a pre-determined result, then you are very likely to ignore any evidence to the contrary, or even fudge the data and/or methodology to give the pre-determined answer."

"I don't think anybody seriously thinks that the climate isn't changing - the historical record is very clear on that - the bit that is contentious is the idea that humanity is a significant factor in causing it."

2
0
Silver badge

No, the key phrase is the bit you left out

"quango's who's funding & existence tends to rely on spouting it"

Sort of like Manning and the hockey stick, so I suppose that's to be expected from you.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

@Some Beggar

Thanks for that, however you might want to read some of the papers listed instead of throwing a hissy fit.

The top result is rather telling:

Sensitivity analysis of the climate of a chaotic system - DANIEL J. LEA et al. TELLUS A, Oct 2000

To put it succinctly, that paper is in fact saying that a fair bit of the climate science is bollocks, due to misunderstandings of chaotic systems.

Which is pretty much what I said above.

1
2
Thumb Down

@Richard 12

It's a widely cited paper from 2000.

You claimed that nobody was doing this kind of study when in fact it has been studied for at least 10 years. You were talking nonsense when it would have taken a five minute google scholar search to check your facts. I'm not sure why my pointing this out qualifies as a hissy fit, but if you'd rather interpret it as that instead of simply taking it as an attempt to improve your knowledge then that's your choice.

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.