They won't re-model!
It doesn't fit ACC pre-supposed conclusions why on Earth would they take it into account ?
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 …
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.
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).
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?
you really need to check out who funds :
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 ?
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.
"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"
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
The "heretics" who say that maybe the solar wind affecting cosmic rays reaching the earth's atmosphere, which affects cloud formation, which affects weather, which could explain the tight correlation between sunspots and earth's temperatures, might be right?
Well, okay, but Al Gore isn't going to like this. Heh.
Mine's the one with the wikipedia article on the Maunder Minimum in the pocket.
"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..
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.
"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.
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.
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.
I asked if anyone can point me to something that shows the error bars/probability maps of the model predictions.
Instead, you used some rather abusive language to point me to a paper from 2000 that is some research that proves the point I made. For all you knew that could be the paper I was referring to.
Maybe I should rephrase the question:
I would like to see some *results* that have taken that and/or similar papers into account, and thus clearly show the error bars and probability map for their models' predictions.
Even after 2000, all the published works I've seen show a simple, clean 'this will happen' curve, with no indication of the likelihood of this particular curve.
The worst part is that these then get used to claim that humanity is fully responsible - despite no comparison whatsoever to a "without" or "reduced humanity" set of model results.
If you can point me towards something that does either, that would be most helpful.
Note that as a layman I don't actually have access to full academic papers as published in Nature, Tellus etc, and Google Scholar usually only finds the abstracts.
Of course, most of this is partially irrelevant due to many politicians using the AGW hypothesis to justify all kinds of crazy schemes would not actually reduce our environmental impact anyway.
As a layman, the most sensible and honest approach to any given subject is to acknowledge that the experts know more than you do. Given that 95% of the relevant experts accept the essentials of anthropogenic climate change, why do you think you know better? Why do you think that your failure to do a rudimentary web search and your misundertsanding of basic mathematics (error bars != chaos) is worth more than millions of hours of research by hundreds of experts?
And please stop whining about offensive language. You're not a child and I'm not your wetnurse.
Those Google Scholar results include both papers on the general applicability of chaotic or deterministic systems to climate prediction _and_ papers on climate prediction that include the error bars that you claim are ignored. Rather than prevaricate and whimper about corruption and conspiracies, how about you actually read them?
I'll donate one hundred pounds to the charity of your choice if you have the dignity to admit that your original post was nonsense. Never. Gonna. Happen.
"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."
'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.
For a more balanced & factual Critique people should read Physics World article
or for a more accurate presention of the work, the Cern article linked to in the Register article
Your Physics World link reveals a very different picture than Orlowski does in this El Reg article.
Specifically this little bit:
"Describing their findings in this week's Nature, the team has also found that our current understanding of the chemistry of these aerosols is inadequate and that manmade pollution could have a larger role in their formation than previously thought."
Note: "...manmade pollution could have a larger role in their formation than previously thought."
That is, humans could be doing even MORE damage to the climate than previously thought, based on the CLOUD team's interpretation of the data they observed.
So, for those of you who are taking this El Reg article's interpretation of the CLOUD paper as some sort of "proof" that the paper puts the onus for climate change on solar activity, you should quiet down and read the paper for yourself. Clearly its interpretation is up to the reader.
the paper shows that cosmic radiation (try anthropogenic in this context!) creates more condensation nuclei that previously thought
How does that make people responsible for cloud creation is beyond me.
Whole debate is really looking more religious than scientific. That's never a good sign.
Funny how the zealots at Real Climate and various other tax-payer funded alarmist blogs had their silly "Move along. Nothing to see here" posts up even before the paper came out today.
First ClimateGate now this. Please explain to me again why we're all paying a 30% surcharge on our energy bills to "save the planet" from man-made CO2? Money which goes straight into the pockets of corrupt climate profiteers and bogus weather scaremongers.
Follow the money, as the man once said.
The one thing that gets me -- and I'll admit a bias as I studied stellar astronomy -- is that we naked apes are the primary cause of the Earth's warming. That nearby star known as "the sun" is the primary engine for our weather; you'd think that its variations MIGHT have some effect, since that's the energy source driving everything else except for a few rogue volcanoes.
I happened to be in grad school at a fairly lefty US university when the Berlin Wall came down. I remember all the budding hippies and commies being caught with their dogmas around their ankles. About a year later, they were starting to go on about global warming. And in both cases, there seemed to be an underlying hatred of the industry, the accumulation of wealth, western civilization, western culture, private property ... in short, the very things that, over a couple-three thousand years, made their college education possible.
I don't think so. The RealClimate post contains references to the paper that could not have been made if they had not read it.
And of course like all climate deniers you completely ignore what Real Climate says ("which wasn't nothing to see here") and make up a strawman. What you mean to say is that RealClimate has called out the denialist spin of this paper. Denialists like to spread the message that man isn't altering the climate and are willing to spin this paper as supporting that even though it doesn't. What you don't like about places like RealClimate is that they are quite quick to not let you get away with it and so they spoil your message.
Its not just the sun.
Its also the earth's own magnetic field at work too.
So when you have changes in the magnetic field (which have been demonstrated to have occurred in the past), you have changes in the effect cosmic rays have on the planet along with solar flares you have an increase in the amount of solar radiation from the sun.
Just more food for thought.
A good day for those in the anti-ACC camp, but are we supposed to believe that a rise in volcanism AND cloud-inducing cosmic rays has somehow caused global climate change at the same time as a massive rise in the human output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, along with a sharp reduction in global forest cover? Isn't that an anthropocentric argument like believing the Earth is the centre of the universe?
That's quite a clusterfuck of coincidences, and seems to me more difficult to accept than that climate might be affected by 6billion+ people burning a billion years of stored hydrocarbons and ramping up industrialised and highly methanogenic agriculture.
PS - I generally favour the ACC argument on the precautionary priniciple. If we make the world a better place and ACC turns out to be wrong later, that's not the worst outcome.
but I remain skeptical because many of the loudest blowhards in the ACC camp also happen to be profiting mightly from the new "Carbon Credits" scheme. At this point, here's what we all know for sure:
1. Climate science sure seems synonymous with political science.
2. We don't really have a clear grasp of the immense complexities of our planet's climate.
I'm certainly doing everything I can to stop using fossil fuels and other forms of energy in general, but I would be happier about this whole debacle if it hadn't turned into such a slimy, political cudgel.
"are we supposed to believe that a rise in volcanism AND cloud-inducing cosmic rays has somehow caused global climate change at the same time as a massive rise in the human output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, along with a sharp reduction in global forest cover?"
Correllation does not prove Causation.
I am still on the fence WRT CC, but saying things like this does not aid a logical argument.
I don't think that Carbon Credits are the solution to climate change, and I'm not even convinced that the majority of climate change is of human origin (though I definitely think we are having SOME effect).
However politicians the world over have decided to go ahead with this scheme, and the markets have embraced it as a money-spinner, so if I can make some money off it, I will. If you're really convinced that the whole climate change scenario is a scam and will come crashing down in a few years, I'm sure you can put your money where your mouth is and short-sell 10-year carbon futures or something.
beer icon - since you don't have a 'cash' icon I'll use the universally accepted barter equivalent :)
You've got that wrong. Forests were cut down over 800 years but are growing back faster than we cut them down. You'll find it called "urbanization".
The worst outcome is the "cure" advocated by the warmists: economic depression and high fuel costs. The PP is just a way of silencing debate and avoiding rational cost-benefit analysis.
And your "a billion years of CO2" is emotive crap. This still amounts to a tiny fraction of the natural carbon cycle.
Now peddle off and do your homework.
The trouble is the climate is changing *all the time*. So it would be even more suprising if an increase in human factors didn't coincide with a change in the climate. Thus it can be argued that there is a 50/50 chance that the climate would warm up at the same time as human CO2 output increased even if the human CO2 output had absolutely no effect on climate at all.
It can also be argued that plums are obese beetles. That doesn't stop it from being bollocks.
The consensus view on climate change is not a simple toss-of-a-coin calculation of probability; it is a correlation of a vast amount of data over a prolonged period backed up by a highly complicated pile of causative theory. Do you really think 95% of relevant researchers would come down on one side of an argument if it was as simplistic as a 50-50 guess?
"A good day for those in the anti-ACC camp, but are we supposed to believe that a rise in volcanism AND cloud-inducing cosmic rays has somehow caused global climate change at the same time as a massive rise in the human output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, along with a sharp reduction in global forest cover? Isn't that an anthropocentric argument like believing the Earth is the centre of the universe?"
No massive rise of human output CO2 before or during this period yet the climate was signifacantly warmer than today. But the climate believers don't like this when pointed out to them.
As I've said before I don't doubt that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere but there is no 1:1 correlation that more CO2 equals climate change - the warm period I mention shows this.
The medieval warm period was local, not global:
I don't know why you think people would mind you making this assertion. It is made with clockwork predictability in any discussion of climate change. It's not exactly hard to refute.
"The medieval warm period was local, not global:"
Yes, that's part of the strategy to discredit the MWP, which presents an embarrassing inconvenience for the AGP hypothesis. It's easier to make recent warming look anomalous and unusual if previous warmings can be made to look "local" and even better if they can be made to look cooler (Hockey Stick).
So far 10/10 for repeating AGW Talking Points.
0/10 for quoting Wikipedia
From your link: "...it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. "
They don't have enough data for the Southern Hemisphere to be able to say anything about that time period. Thus, the current evidence is consistent with a global "Medieval Warm Period".
Human produced CO2 is a very small part of the natural CO2 output
CO2 appears to lag temperature by some 800 years. 800 years ago we had the Middle Ages Warm Period; so we would expect to see an increase in natural CO2 output.
The precautionary principle is only applicable if applying it does not destroy the very thing you are trying to protect. The cost (in terms of destruction of standard of living; jobs etc) compared to the effects of global warming just doe not make sense. What about all the benefits of warming - more CO2 means more crops for less water; a quick check in history v climate reveals that warm periods are ALWAYS beneficial for Humans; cold periods are ALWAYS detrimental. The precautionary principle actually would suggest getting MORE CO2 into the atmosphere to help try and prevent the next Ice Age - due sometime in the next few thousand years; but perhaps as close as the next 100 - we just don't know....
What this latest research seems to show is more solar activity = more cosmic rays = more particles = more cloud formation.... but doesn't more cloud formation = lower temperatures? As far as I know the data indicates positive correlation between solar activity and temperature (which is what I would expect, stronger sun = warmer weather)
I hope someone with a higher boffinry quotient can explain.
The only real conclusion is that some assumptions in some models will need to be re-visited in light of some new results. That's not altogether exciting to Joe Public, but it's what a lot of scientific research looks like. (Which is a reason - not an excuse - for the way many journalists exaggerate or leap to unjustified conclusions to spice up the news.)
The researchers themselves are quite clear that nobody can yet extrapolate from these results to any firm conclusions about the way the climate works or what role man's activity has played in it.
Your confusion arises because you have the first relationship back to front.
More active sun = fewer cosmic rays because the solar wind acts as a buffer, reducing the cosmic rays coming into the solar system.
Fewer cosmic rays
= less nucleation
= less cloud
= higher surface temperatures.
More solar activity actually leads to reduced cosmic rays reaching the earth - cosmic rays don't come from the sun (the 'cosmic' part of it).
The way it is explained in Svensmark's theory is that the cosmic rays are pretty much constant, but high solar activity includes a high magnetic flux which prevents cosmic rays reaching the earth. This is the theory to explain the correlation between how historic activity (as measured by sunspots) and cold spells going back about 400 years.
As a theory, it needed to be tested - the data on low magnetic flux from the sun during this (quiet) solar cycle and higher cosmic rays has certainly doesn't refute it, but the question was how this could affect climate. The impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation seemed like a good mechanism and experiments started as early as the mid 90's supported this, but the CERN experiment, which was regarded as being the critical test, only got going about three years ago (maybe four).
The potential political impact has had even the DG of CERN worried - hence his warning to the scientists to not go into the broader implications in their paper.
"The potential political impact has had even the DG of CERN worried - hence his warning to the scientists to not go into the broader implications in their paper."
AGW has now become so entrenched into the current political system that even CERN are scared to publish anything that might possibly refute any part of it.
This is a very bad place for science to be, as it actively prevents any improvements in our understanding of the world.
It's rather similar to a few hundred years ago when certain people were hounded for going against the beliefs of the prevailing political system - and yet, it moves.
its nothing to do with that. The problem is that climate deniers are willing to exagerate and spin. They are doing it with this very paper. The author makes it clear the study doesn't show the results the deniers are claiming it does.
If you want to know why there was a need for the manager to warn the scientists to not interpret the paper, look no further than the heaving masses of deniers ready to spin it.
You said "The problem is that climate deniers are willing to exagerate and spin."
I say "The problem is that climate believers are willing to exaggerate and spin."
And when two parties behave this way more people will eventually swing to the side which spins the least and as more people are moving to the non-anthropogenic side I'll leave it to you which side is spinning the most...
"AGW has now become so entrenched into the current political system that even CERN are scared to publish anything that might possibly refute any part of it."
Well - yes and no. On the down side, yes the whole debate has been too politicized and polarized, and is being used by politicians and industrialists to not just game the system - but help set it up. Hardly a situation confined to carbon trading etc but bad just the same. The situation with scientists being advised not to speculate or interpret too broadly the results of the research is very bad - but not too surprising in the circumstances alas.
On the up side - CERN are most certainly _not_ scared to publish the data.
Interesting comments in PhysicsWorld about Biomass being a major source of aerosols. If the rest of the theory proves sound then it looks quite bad for a lot of "carbon-neutral" energy schemes.
Although it doesn't really need another study and more pointless arguing from both sides of the APGW debate. Whatever your beliefs, pumping crap into the atmosphere isn't a good thing.
CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them".
Why the hell not?
What they should say when making such statements, as they have in the past, should be "to present the results clearly, and allow assholes to take said information and formulate it into a lie that supports whatever sponsors they hold dear to them".
For once, can we have a SCIENTIST interpret what they know, and not a damn idiot on TV?
Ah well, sigh.
Allowing scientists to interpret their findings, especially with a sensitive topic like this, would be bad. Organizations like CERN do a lot more than studies like this and making a statement on what their findings mean could jeopardize their funding.
It's really too bad that science has gotten to the point where scientists aren't allowed to speak out regarding their research unless they are paid to do so by a 3rd party. I got into science to explore the world but now I'm just disappointed; as are so many of my co-workers and peers. Science has been raped by politicians and large companies. Seeing what is happening now makes it easier to understand how the "dark ages" happened.
"CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them".
Why the hell not?"
What he meant was that they shouldn't come out with an interpretation that they cannot justify using their observations. A lot of people throwing their toys out of their prams would have liked these scientists to say that their experiment shows that climate change is all about solar activity and that all that carbon dioxide business is a lie, but experiments like this can't even stretch beyond saying that solar activity is one of many factors.
People get annoyed when scientists claim stuff they can't actually stand behind later on, so the DG's advice is a mere reminder not to get carried away opining on the latest fashionable topics. Of course, the whining pundits are not able to use the resulting statements as ammunition in their discrediting of other scientific work, hence the clueless cries of censorship.
quote "Well done the Register for filtering out those parts of Nature which do not support the correct way of thinking."
IF you READ the Nature article you will find they suppressed i.e. Omitted an very interesting graph from the Cern report which clearly shows the effects of cosmic rays.
Who is playing with the facts then?
"IF you READ the Nature article you will find they suppressed i.e. Omitted an very interesting graph from the Cern report which clearly shows the effects of cosmic rays."
The only reason you are making this claim is because Calder said it and you've blindly believed him. It's the stupidest meme going that the graph was suppressed just because it's in the supplementary details.
Why would the authors hide their own data? If it's that important where is the part in the paper that explains why it is so important? I mean come on think man. All the evidence is that the graph is just some plot of data included in the supplementary info for the paper and not some separate suppressed revelation.
I hope this answers your own question about who is playing with the facts. It's the climate deniers.
"IF you READ the Nature article you will find they suppressed i.e. Omitted an very interesting graph from the Cern report which clearly shows the effects of cosmic rays."
For the benefit of those of us interested, but without a subscription to Nature, could you provide some details on this ?
For years I have been saying that there is a link between climate change and both solar and volcanic activity.
So now it appears proven that cosmic rays from Solar Wind, create ionic charges that cause various atoms and molecules to become attracted to each other, forming larger particles that will attract water vapor.
Both Volcanoes and manmade combustion form various oxides such as SOx & NOx, which combine in the presence of water to form molecules like H2SO4 and NH3 and many others.
Volcanic gases and particles tend to be thrown higher in the atmosphere where the effect of cosmic radiation appears to be more pronounced; while manmade sources tend to be found at lower elevations, where cosmic radiation is less evident.
The added electrical charge from the cosmic rays acts like an electrostatic precipitator causing the "molecular soup" to coalesce into droplets that can either reflect or absorb infrared energy.
This added energy also affects the ozone layer as ozone has a weak electrical charge that holds the third oxygen atom to the naturally occuring diatomic O2 molecule.
The hole in the ozone layer always occurs over the poles where the greatest attraction of cosmic and magnetic energy is located. Lightning helps produce Ozone while cosmic rays and atmospheric chemistry help break it down.
Add a little Fluorine from leaking refrigerant gases and the balance is upset. But Fluorine also comes from Volcanic gases as HF or Hydroflouric Acid.
I find it particularly interesting that we tend to only blame human causes when it is so obvious that there are so many other forces that affect climate change that remain uninvestigated.
The amount of energy input from Solar and Volcanic activity into this chemical "equation" far outweighs the energy input from manmade sources.
Maybe, the ethnocentrist blame monkeys might want to consider that they do not have the whole picture and consider the opinions of others instead of dismissing them wholesale or covering up contradictory science.
chlorine derived from CFCs.
The actual reaction is atomic chlorine + O3 -> chlorine monoxide and oxygen.
Unfortunately chlorine monoxide can react with oxygen atoms of which there are some in the upper atmosphere to regenerate chlorine atoms to perpetuate the cycle.
ClO + O -> O2 + Cl
A Non-fluorine containing material such as carbon tetrachloride is also an ozone destroyer.
Reading through the comments I think a lot of people have got the wrong end of the stick as far as the relation of Sun activity vs cosmic rays interacting with our atmosphere. People seem to think high sun activity = more cosmic rays. The opposite is the case.
Most cosmic rays come from the cosmos (i.e the rest of the universe, pusars, blackholes, etc) not the sun. The suns role in this is via the solar winds. Strong solar winds shield the Earth from cosmic rays. And strong solar winds happen when the sun is very active.
So the relationship is that when the sun is very active the solar winds are strong and less cosmic rays interact with our atmosphere and so less clouds are formed, etc, etc.
Now we have been in a period of high solars activity and are predicted to be going into a period of very low solar activity, which should mean more comic rays and therefore more clouds and lower temps.
I do not sit in any camp on this and will be interested to see if this mechanism results in lower global averages, showing CO2 is not such and important factor. Or whether the Earth keeps warming which means CO2 is the most important factor.
So I am quite happy to watch this 'experiment' happen before making my conclusions, I would suggest others do the same....
Recently started, with some interesting "back of a fag packet" calculations. From a physicist. So the fag packet may need to be more cigar-sized...
and one in particular from there that mentions climate change due to carbon emission (though recommend reading the earlier ones to get a flavour for the style)
Does not mean it is not important, and does not mean it is OK to continue exhausting the Earth's resources and polluting the environment.
The climate scientists are only playing by the same rules as those in opposition, we just have a tendency to expect a better moral and ethical standard.
On top of this, unfortunately, the general population will not do even simple things, such as sorting most of their rubbish, using small cars or hybrids for short and inner city journeys, and so on.
And businesses, especially the powerful ones, are much harder than individuals to persuade to change their behaviour.
Ultimately its still the right path to follow, and really not that much work.
@Maiakaat: As someone who regularly recycles his little heart out, puts alcohol on his car's fuel tank and never litters, I have to ask: Are you seriously referring to CO2 as 'pollution'?
When I grew up, we used to joke that our government (Norwegian for the record) put taxes on everything and that the only tax missing was the one for breathing. Now, thanks to CO2 taxes, we have come a lot closer to that point. Every time I exhale I have effectively released some CO2 into the air.
More people on this planet = more bastards exhaling CO2. I am not sure just how one would expect to solve manmade global warming without killing off half this planet's population.
Every generation has their set of doomsday theories. To me, AGW looks like ours. Before we tax a gas that is vital to all life on this planet, could we perhaps make really, really sure that all the science involved is 100% sound?
I am also worried that all of the CO2 focus seems to make governments less worried about what I'd like to refer to as real pollution. Diesel engines, even when mated with particulate filters, can often be observed to emit big black clouds of exhaust. That can't be good. Yet all I hear is "CO2 will kill us!".
I'm talking about a much wider issue than CO2, I am talking about our impact on this planet as a species, and our general attitude and approach towards how we treat it.
There are far worse things in the atmosphere produced by a whole range of natural and man made processes than CO2. Eradication of natural methane storage to enable population growth, built on unsustainable economics. resulting in less CO2, more resources needed, and less rainforest. For me the extent to which we contribute to climate change is not actually that relevant, and, as I understand it, it is possible this evidence means we my actually have made a more significant impact on the climate, it could go either way when the research is processed and examined.
I am not defending the tax system, its a terrible solution, I don't understand why people are attacking science using political solutions that clearly are more of a revenue stream than a solution, the two are not the same.
I if we stopped governments backing big companies to cut down the rainforest for an unethical attempt to solve the oil problem, and introduced measures to stop the population expanding at the crazy rate it is, CO2 wouldn't even enter into the debate anyway.
I too do my best, I don't drive, my only sin is being a techy, and in some ways that can be quite bad, although I keep track of which companies are really not trying (Nintendo for example), I too am frustrated at policy, and politicians only too happy to spin something into a money earner for their mates at big companies
What I am saying is, its time to take a sensible more aware approach to how we use our planet, if for no reason other than preserving the earth and its resources in a more sustainable way for thousands of years to come, and then press the government to introduce measures to stop things such at the deforestation of the rainforests, Simple things like using nuclear fuel rather than giving in to scaremongering by the green campaign until a better solution is developed, lowering fuel costs.
The policy is not OK, the ideology is, policy needs to target the real issues, but without an issue that has potentially grave consequences for us all, those doing the most harm will be especially guilty of not acting ethically and with responsibility, especially now as companies are beginning to define borders, and become more influential than countries.
I once heard a phrase that if companies were people, they would be clinical psychopaths. I am on the side of people, lets not get science and ideology mixed up with political spin and bad policy.
"When I grew up, we used to joke that our government (Norwegian for the record) put taxes on everything and that the only tax missing was the one for breathing. Now, thanks to CO2 taxes, we have come a lot closer to that point. Every time I exhale I have effectively released some CO2 into the air."
Don't worry: the Norwegian government grants tax exemptions for the offshore oil and gas business. No pesky additional carbon dioxide taxes for them. And it's interesting that you mention carbon dioxide as "a gas that is vital to all life on this planet" explicitly. Nobody disputes that, but such phrases have featured in oil company advertising as if to suggest that *not* burning millions of years' worth of hydrocarbons would be damaging to life on the planet.
"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.
How many clues do people need that this paper isn't the revelational proof that cosmic rays influence the climate that deniers are spinning it as? When the author of the very paper is contradicting the climate deniers how on earth do they think they can get away with it?
The people who are sitting on the fence on the issue of manmade global warming should really dive into this issue, look at the reporting from different sources and you'll be able to form an opinion on just who is spinning.
Oh, so it's all settled is it? We have a nice piece of science that appears to convincingly confirm, describe and explain a mechanism that forms part of the *highly* non-linear climate system. That's good and no doubt will lead to quite a bit of rethinking; it would be a brave person who would immediately draw conclusions about the changed *output* of the non-linear system to this newly documented input mechanism. I am very shocked by the undignified, sarcastic, triumphalist and destructive tone of Nigel's article - I expect better of him. Also, of course I hope that the IPCC responds with dignity *and* scientific integrity by encouraging work on the implications.
Nice to see that the old PS, which started up in 1959, is still good for something. This is all to CERN's credit, so stop the sneering at their wise caution.
<quote>What this latest research seems to show is more solar activity = more cosmic rays = more particles = more cloud formation.... but doesn't more cloud formation = lower temperatures?
Quite the opposite.
Cosmic radiation doesn't come from the sun. It comes from "the cosmos".
It appears that when the sun is active, the stronger solar wind prevents cosmic rays from entering the earth's atmosphere by sweeping them around the earth. When the sun is inactive, more of them penetrate the atmosphere.
It also appears that increasing clouds have a cooling effect.
Since it now also appears that the more cosmic radiation reaching the atmosphere causes more cloud, the process would be:
Quiet sun = moe cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere = more cloud formation = lower temperature.
"Dr. Gerald Pollack, UW professor of bioengineering, has developed a theory of water that has been called revolutionary. The researcher has spent the past decade convincing worldwide audiences that water is not actually a liquid. Pollack explains his fascinating theory in this 32nd Annual Faculty Lecture." (See URL below for video)
If Dr. Gerald Pollack is right, or even on the right track, between the two, it could explain a lot.
Consensus does not exist in science or math. Scientific facts are proven. Mathematical facts are proven. Science is not a democracy, neither is math. If 60% of mathematicians claimed that 2+2=5 would it then be correct?
Of course not. This whole consensus argument is so easily seen through as being upheld through politics, thats all. How many Ice Ages has the earth been through? How many times did the earth warm back up without power plants and SUVs??? Every single time! LOL.
Global Warming is a religion. Most of these folks have no religion, so they need to have some reason to live, and they have found it in saving the planet, and the politics behind it. This is now their reason for living.
I think we can all agree that Climate Change has been going on for 4 billions years.
It is the arrogance of man to suggest that he can play such a pivotal role in something as big and complicated as the weather system. Nature itself has much more power than we do, and things have been fine.
Global Warming has been changed to Climate Change for a reason. Its not warming anymore.
Carbon Dioxide is only 2% of the greenhouse effect. 4th grade knowledge tells you that.
Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect.
+ does not have to be defined the way most people use it. It is quite possible to create a working mathematical space in which the + sign has a very different definition. The only reason 2 + 2 = 4 is because of a consensus on the definition of + in the Real space (where most math is done).
If yo want I can dig out my abstract algebra book and work out what is necessary to define an algebraic space.
"Consensus does not exist in science or math."
Consensus has been a fundamental part of science for over two hundred years.
You're free to join the debate and try to change the consensus. Do some research. Publish some papers. Present some posters at a scientific meeting. Send a letter to a journal. Hell ... you could just send an email to a relevant researcher putting forward your contribution.
Or ... you know ... you could just froth on an internet messageboard.
It's not hard to make people believe the sun is going to disappear during an eclipse. The problem for the scammer is when the sun starts to reappear. That's what happen to the AGW/IPCC hoax. There has not been one assertion by the socialist environmental left , who were pushing this agenda, that has not been torn to shreds when given the slightest scrutiny. This is not the first scam these frauds have tried to pull off and it won't be the last. This one is all over though because they have NO CREDIBILTY LEFT.
Here we go again. The Warmers are hurling thunderbolts at real scientists with F.A.C.T.s. If that sounds like the Evolution debate baked over, just remember the Warmers are making billions from their selective distortions.
The sad truth is that there is no evidence for global warming. It is clear that the trends mainly do NOT support it. Deliberate errors in "adjustments" to data, and careful choice of which data to present have created a myth.
The amount of CO2 is miniscule, and the impact of men and farting cows is much smaller than that of the sun and volcanoes. An honest scientist will tell you that the large effects make the small man-made effects impossible to identify, and that the world trend is cooling. Antarctic ice is expanding, not shrinking, for instance.
Its about time we had an honest forum on the data, rather than 'church' meetings.
Scientists don't stand to make $$$ either way. I don't think that was claimed. But they stand to attract funding if they toe the right line.
Politicians use CO2 as part of their election plans.
Governments shape industry by subsidising green programs like electric cars and solar panels and wind farms.
Oil companies can sell oil as fast as they can mine it regardless, and personally I think we should be pushing to reduce oil use regardless because it is a finite resource.
Care to give any evidence for this paranoid worldguv fantasy of yours?
Perhaps you could explain the mechanism by which this conspiracy has taken place? Where do this imaginary billions come from? And how do they magically make their way into the researchers' pockets given that the accounts of all funding bodies and research institutions are publically available?
It's so odd that all the conservative blogs are using that same abridged quote. Are you all citing the same Koch daily talking points or something?
What you miss is the sentence that IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS the one you quote: "It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities."
So if anything, the paper asks more questions than it answers, and opens up the possibility of GREATER human influence on climate.
By the way, The Way Things Break has a very readable breakdown of the Nature article, with links to the harder science for those that want a deeper look: http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/concern-trolling-on-clouds-and-climate-change/
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
Proper science and suppression of ideas cannot co-exist. Faith and certainty must suppress alternative explanations to survive. That is why I say Climate pseudo science has become a faith not proper factual science. and we are all poorer for it's loss.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019