Feeds

back to article Climate-cooling effect 'stronger than volcanoes' is looking solid

A newly discovered mechanism for cooling the planet - potentially, according to its discoverers, more significant even than the well-known chilling effects of volcanic eruptions - has now been further investigated. The mechanism in question is the action of difficult-to-study atmospheric molecules known as "Criegee intermediates …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Joke

Course of action required !

Do we now have to get out the big V8's for fear of freezing our behinds off ? Are Tesla's days numbered ? Do coal powerplants contribute to global warming by expulsion of CO2 but also to cooling by ejecting even more S ? What ???I'm confused and don't know what to do anymore. Please help !

5
1
Facepalm

Nordic spruce

So, in the 1970's when we Britons were being chastised for generating acid rain from our industries and destroying all the forests in Scandinavia, we were actually helping hold back global warming.

Who new? We needn't have turned our economy to the financial services sector and consequentially allowed it to have an inadequate manufacturing base to cope with the current depression after all. Oh well.

2
2
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Nordic spruce

yeah because the smog cities of China are so much more pleasant to live in

10
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nordic spruce

We manufacture more cars now than we did when there was a "British" car industry in the 70s, and what's more, they're not a joke any more.

11
1
ja
FAIL

Re: Nordic spruce

Your financial sector was always more important than your crappy manufacturing. You wouldn't have survived the war without the Commonwealth backing you up with manpower and the Americans supplying the guns and butter.

0
2
Silver badge

British cars

Nor are the Made In Britain cars British. They're pretty much all German (Mini, Rolls Royce) or Indian (Jag/Land Rover...)

1
0

Re: Nordic spruce

@AC 08:51 We do not "manufacture" cars in Blightly. We assemble an assortment of parts that come in boxes from the far east. Like a glorified IKEA de-flat packing but for cars.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: British cars

Toyota, Honda...

1
0
Childcatcher

Re: Nordic spruce

Isn't it good Norwegian Wood?

Also "the second Criegee intermediate: namely CH3CHOO". Hum, can you see it? Looks like choo-choo to me.

Perhaps there is a wood fired steam engine behind all this

0
0
Gold badge
Thumb Up

An excellent result

Thumbs up for going looking for things in the real world.

As a "top down" kind of guy it's always amazed me that people did not run analysis of all gases in the atmosphere (to the limits of detection) and then start assigning their effects on climate and the atmosphere.

Sadly I guess atmosphere & climate scientists are not as coordinated as their colleagues in biochemistry or astronomy.

This should help narrow the confidence bands still further (a good thing when you've got models predicting ranges from 1.5c to 8.9c. That worst case is very bad indeed).

Usual caveats that I hope this gets incorporated in GCM's sooner rather than later.

11
4
Silver badge

Looks like the warmers are on the warpath.

Beware non-believers ! You will be downvoted to the lowest pits of Hell !

4
4
Anonymous Coward

Oh look, discussion by mockery, the true sign of someone who hasn't a clue what they're talking about.

4
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: An excellent result

"Sadly I guess atmosphere & climate scientists are not as coordinated as their colleagues in biochemistry or astronomy."

Speaking as somebody who has studied climate science at degree level, I'd equate it to economics rather than physics. Climate modelling done with any attempt at rigour is vastly complex. And the complex models are all still based on guesses and assumptions, and partial inputs, no matter how big or complex. So what we have are similar to the huge value at risk models built by all the big banks in the early noughties. And just as they were comprehensively wrong, so too are the climate models.

Strip away the faux complexity of the models, and for climate science, correlation is causation. I can think of no other area of science where such weak methods are permitted and encouraged, nor any which are as actively harmful to the world economy (or rather, European economies).

9
3
Bronze badge

Re: An excellent result

That's because they build the roof first before they have the foundation or the walls built.

They all go at it from the wrong position. They try to drill up to wether the eart cools down or up. Rather than drill down from the absolute base of the warming cooling trend. This trend can only be measured from space.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: An excellent result

"Strip away the faux complexity of the models, and for climate science, correlation is causation."

What BS. The predicted warming is based on physics. The greenhouse effect. It has nothing to do with correlation. If you did study climate science at degree level you probably failed.

5
11

Re: An excellent result

>> "Strip away the faux complexity of the models, and for climate science, correlation is causation."

The issue isn't that the models are "too complex"; if anything it is that they are too simple and missing factors. Accurate modelling of any system is really hard work, especially when systems are non-linear and self regulate; errors in the model tend to stack up pretty quickly. It doesn't mean the models are worthless, but as a scientist you need to admit the weaknesses in the methodology rather than insisting that the CPU is always right because the model said so.

> What BS. The predicted warming is based on physics. The greenhouse effect. It has nothing to do with correlation. If you did study climate science at degree level you probably failed.

It is possible to based something on physics and for it still be be wrong if the physics in question is not a complete set of variables.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: An excellent result@NomNomNom

"What BS. The predicted warming is based on physics."

Well, I've studied the subject, you clearly haven't. The laughable simplicity of the "CO2 greenhouse effect" simply isn't working as claimed, nor would any sensible person expect it to . Almost all climate models have failed to accurately predict temperature trends. Even the basics of temperature measurement are poxed up by the vast urbanisation and lack of validly comparable data.

"If you did study climate science at degree level you probably failed."

Oooh look an ad hominem against a "climate denier". Is that as good as your argument gets? And worth noting that the founder of CRU himself scoffed at the concept of CO2 forcing global warming. Maybe you'd like to throw some stones at him?

I'll try and spell it out for the likes of you: Complex systems modelling is only as good as its weakest link - be that a measured input, an assumption, or a calculation. And being "complex", that means lots of assumptions, inputs and calculations, lots of feedback loops, lots of guesses, and lots of gaps. Now, if you're really daft enough to think that when we can't even model relatively small complex systems (eg the UK economy, or the weather a week ahead) with any accuracy, somehow climate "scientists" are able to model the global climate, then you've been had, good and proper. I would encourage you to pay attention to any enticing emails from Nigeria, they could make you rich.

In the meanwhile, I suggest you have a cup of organic yak's milk tea to calm down, pull on your beard to distract from the pain of seeing such heresies publicly expressed, and console yourself by browsing your catalogue of homeopathic remedies, healing crystals, and feng shui accessories.

9
5
Silver badge

Re: An excellent result@NomNomNom

"Complex systems modelling is only as good as its weakest link - be that a measured input, an assumption, or a calculation. And being "complex", that means lots of assumptions, inputs and calculations, lots of feedback loops, lots of guesses, and lots of gaps. Now, if you're really daft enough to think that when we can't even model relatively small complex systems (eg the UK economy, or the weather a week ahead)"

So why did you earlier claim that green policies were harmful to the world economy?

Either you drew that conclusion from a complex professional economic model or, more likely, you drew it from a very simple economic model in your head. Either way you relied on a flawed model and announced the result as fact.

Once you figure out why YOU took your flawed economic model result seriously, you'll come to understand why scientists take flawed climate model results seriously. All models are flawed. Economists and scientists know this. But even flawed models can provide useful information. This is why I question your claimed background. Because you don't seem to appreciate this simple fact. Then again maybe you just took a module in Earth science for your fossil fuel mining degree.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: An excellent result

"It is possible to based something on physics and for it still be be wrong if the physics in question is not a complete set of variables."

Yes but it wouldn't be based on correlation would it.

Claiming that manmade global warming is based on correlation (ie CO2 is rising, temperature is rising, therefore CO2 must cause warming) betrays a complete lack of understanding of climate science. So when the same person is trying to buff up the authority of their argument by claiming they studied the subject...

1
3

A.C. @10.37

Please let that be intentional irony. Please!

0
0

Ooooh look...

...insults from am anonymous account.

Pfft.

Posted Thursday 25th April 2013 10:37 GMT Anonymous Coward

0
0

Re: An excellent result@NomNomNom

@AC 16:02 If you'd studied the subject in question as you claim you would not need to post anonymously. If you want your comments to have any weight you need to come out and present your credentials and your published work so readers are able to work out whether you have something genuine to say or not.

Also, throwing stones while complaining about thrown stones is a bit old testament. Smacks of a religious tone and reduces your credibility even further. Come one, come out, tell us who you are.

1
1

Re: An excellent result

No doubt a more accurate measurement could be made from space. However what does that gain us? A decade's worth of accurate measurements would still be just 10 years out of billions. It is like trying to determine the velocity of a bouncing ball from a snapshot photograph.

0
0
Silver badge

homeopathic remedies

Hilarious. Beautiful post funny *and* informative.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: An excellent result@NomNomNom

Will there come a time when alarmists speak directly to the argument? The provenance of an argument, especially at this level is hardly relevant. You think the world is headed for global disaster and that we can and should be doing something about it. Just present your evidence already. This is, according to you, slam-dunk settled science. Fine. I have sufficient training to review your evidence. Thus far, after years of looking I find absolutely nothing of substance and tons of stuff flatly contradicting the alarmist narrative.

The reason this constantly devolves into alarmists indulging in name-calling is because they just simply flat out DO NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Why? Because none exists. There is no empirical support for their theories of global catastrophe. If there was, they would speak to that and not spend their time flailing about in desperate attacks on the people who disagree with them.

I wish to goodness the alarmists would finally just put up or shut up. If this is such a 'settled science' slam-dunk the world should be awash in evidence. It is not. If it were, the alarmists would be able to present a cogent evidence backed argument verified by accurate predictions. They have nothing of the sort.

The more you look at this the more it just stinks to high heaven. This is a group of semi-literate thugs out to rip us all off with their fiat carbon credit schemes. At the very least, I would like to see a more intelligent swindle. The Climate Change Alarm assault on science is an insult to our collective intelligence.

2
1
Bronze badge

CH3CHOO!

Acid RAIN? Now we get acid CO2.

CH3CHOO!

Gesundheit.

6
0

Re: CH3CHOO!

Does he mean ethanoic (acetic) acid, do you think?

..more normally written CH3COOH (because the H bonds to one of the oxygen atoms, not the carbon), and definitely to be sneezed at in high enough concentrations.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: CH3CHOO!

The CH3CHOO, is expressed this way to represent the reactive carbonyl group.

0
0

Re: CH3CHOO!

Hi,

I guess the carbonyl group is just as reactive if you write it as 'CH3COOH' or as 'CH3CHOO' - can't really see why there is a need to change the standard way of writing the formula for ethanoic acid (acetic acid or, if in the chippy, non-brewed condiment (though what this has got to do with contraception I don't know)) - it is still the standard je presume?

sleep well, happy people

0
0
Bronze badge
Coat

Re: CH3CHOO!

"The CH3CHOO, is expressed this way to represent the reactive carbonyl group."

And there was me thinking they were either just jumping on the climate change train or going off the rails.

Coat. Got. Gone.

0
0
Bronze badge
Coat

Green Tax Refund

Does this mean we can all ask the government for our tax money back; I especially look forwards to the removal of the "Green Energy" taxes that have tripled my electricity bills in the last few years.

(Having studied "Future Ecology and Alternative Fuel Sources" at Birmingham U in the late 70's, I am fully aware that ALL of the Global Warming policies are bollocks.)

That's me in newspaper stuffed clothing as I cant afford to heat my house any longer.

12
4
Silver badge

Re: Green Tax Refund

"I especially look forwards to the removal of the "Green Energy" taxes that have tripled my electricity bills in the last few years."

A bit of a tall tale given green energy taxes only contribute to about 10% of electricity prices.

5
7
Bronze badge

Re: Green Tax Refund

That 10% (when I looked at my last electricity bill, it was 12%) is the direct cost to consumers 'at the pump'. Companies are also being charged extra, and they're not going to just absorb all that additional cost are they? No, they pass it on the *us* as increased prices *and* we pay VAT at 20% on that price increase.

So the true figure is probably closer to 20% than 10%. But honestly, who knows? I'm sure that it's possible to squeeze the figures to extract whatever truth one requires :-|

6
3

Re: Green Tax Refund

If you look a little more carefully, the distribution costs have gone up. By quite a lot.

It's almost as if there was a need to run pylons and cable to all sorts of out-of-the-way places to connect up wind turbines... By creatively allocating that cost to 'distribution' - without explaining why the cost has gone up - they can make it look like it's nothing to do with green policies.

Factor in that bit too and it's a lot more than ten percent.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Green Tax Refund

Amen! Maybe we can focus more on starving children or some other tangible and serious problem from now on.

1
1
ja
Alert

Re: Green Tax Refund

There are quite enough children starving without any encouragement from your government. Stay out of it.

4
0
Silver badge

Climate science newsflash

No-one understands the climate well enough to make usefully accurate long-term predictions.

21
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Climate science newsflash

So we'd best not try to then, it's just something man is not to wot of.

1
2
Silver badge

Not at all.

Try, by all means.

Just don't get religious about what you believe your results show.

At least not until we can accurately forecast whether or not you need a raincoat next month.

11
1
Silver badge

Re: Climate science newsflash

Don''t be so harsh, he only forgot the 'yet' off the end.

0
0
FAIL

Repeat ad infinitum.

CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER

5
6
Anonymous Coward

@Pascal - Until you understand the difference between weather and climate, you probably shouldn't comment on threads about climate. We get pretty good forecasts for the weather over the next two weeks, getting more accurate as they get closer, but the UK is one of the most difficult places to forecast in the world, for various reasons.

2
5
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Climate science newsflash

I do, and I can build a pretty secure way of how to measure it. Just give me the money to do it.

It does include a few trips to the moon to set up my lab equipment.

Ok, a budget-version would use man made satellites instead.

Well now when I said that I can tell you the rest of my method. Continuously measure the energy that the earth is radiated with, and then measure the energy the earth radiates out into space.

Then you know weather the earth is cooling or heating up. After that you may start to build hypotheses on where that energy will be stored in / removed from, air, water, landmass, magma iron core, etc and what the effects will be short term long term.

Now we try to do it the other way around making hypotheses based on weather measurements on weather the earth warms up or cool down.

Instead we could monitor the effects on the weather in comparison to the number of Watts won or lost. Build a AI based on fuzzy logic or neural network that learns to predict short term and long term effects. Feed it with actual mass data of the earth and properties of the mass, shape and material. Can be measured today with Muon detectors which is now used to measure mountains and their shape. Sophisticated enough it could be used to find large resources of e.g. gold, oil diamonds etc I guess.

Then we just feed that AI with our pollution data, and other weather data. In the end the AI figures out a reliable model, and then we can feed it with hypothetical future data and see what the long/short term effects will be.

Pay me and I do it. In a few decades I've built a system that can predict next weeks global weather trend. Local prediction would still take some more decades of data harvest. But eventually my grandchild's grandchild's grandchild would be able to do it perfectly. Except that I would need to get a child first, no plans for that though.

I wanted Paris, Face palm and the big boom next to the very fitting alien at same time. Why can't I.

1
3
Bronze badge

I assume the down votes was because of you shouting. Otherwise we have at least 3 morons here.

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

The difference between weather and climate

When the weather becomes warmer or windier or less predictable, it indicates that the climate is heating up.

By contrast, when the weather gets colder or calmer or more predictable, it's a purely local phenomenon of no significance.

3
2
Bronze badge
Holmes

Until you understand the difference between weather and climate, you probably shouldn't comment on threads about climate.

The gist of Pascal's message is that we shouldn't hold as ultimate truth and base our decisions on science that isn't reliable yet – though it may on the future, and then should be taken more at face value.

That you raced right past his main point, going straight to bicker on the difference between "weather" and "climate", speaks volumes on who really should think twice before commenting on threads... About anything, actually.

3
1
Coat

As a UK resident for the last fifty five years I want to know where you are getting your weather forecasts. Mine have been c**p just for the last week. Don't forget all those predictions of a barbecue summer last year. I have come to the conclusion that if you fail in any other government dept they transfer you to the met office, after all you cannot muck up the weather, and you can just ask for a more expensive computer for your models when they don't work...

After all as we all know a faster shinier computer makes you do your job better. So users always claim!

All right. I'll get me coat, and go back on the tablets. As an aside as others have stated, climate is not weather, but we simply haven't got enough data from enough sources (yet) to (accurately) predict either yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, just that we should take all predictions with a sack of salt for the nonce. They are chaotic systems it's like politicians, you can reasonably predict that one or more will be caught with their trousers down, or their hand in the till. The chaotic bit is that you cannot always predict which one will be caught. Right, now where's that coat?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

@Nogbad - You do know that the problem with the "Barbecue summer" forecast was that they said there is a 75% change of one, which everyone who doesn't understand how probability works thought meant means it's definitely going to happen. Do I suggest that as you don't know how to understand a forecast, you're not in a position to criticise them.

0
1

Re: Climate science newsflash

Big ROFL from South Korea dude LOL :D

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Nuclear bomb could also cool the earth with a nuclear winter.

Krakatoa left Europe with harsher winters for a number of years afterwards because of what was spewed into the atmosphere.

This is common knowledge, it's not that amazing that they have broken the science down a bit more though through ice cores they've known this for sometime.

5
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.