If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Jasper Kirkby explains the CERN Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets experiment (CLOUD). CLOUD tests cosmic rays and their potential to stimulate cloud formation. Disclaimer: OMG denier   (youtube.com) divider line 274
    More: Cool, Jasper Kirkby, CERN, cosmic rays, geological time scale, experiments, cloud testing  
•       •       •

1425 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Mar 2012 at 1:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



274 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-11 01:55:25 PM
BURN THE HERETIC!
 
2012-03-11 01:56:31 PM
This headline made my brain hurt
 
2012-03-11 02:07:47 PM

Sargun: This headline made my brain hurt


...and that was before I clicked and saw that the video is over an hour long. WTF?

Cliff's notes?
 
2012-03-11 02:12:56 PM
the sun's gotten brighter?!
 
2012-03-11 02:15:29 PM

Devolving_Spud: Sargun: This headline made my brain hurt

...and that was before I clicked and saw that the video is over an hour long. WTF?

Cliff's notes?


The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes.

However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming - and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity.

However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism.

Indeed recent satellite observations - although disputed - suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.
 
2012-03-11 02:23:00 PM
solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established

I get what you're saying, but solar variability's effects on climate change are not controversial, and several physical mechanisms are well-known -- simple insolation being the most obvious.

What's controversial is how significant these effects are in comparison to anthropogenics and our current situation. But even that isn't all that controversial. Anthropogenics seem strongly to be far more relevant to here and now.

In any case, this stuff from TFA is about cosmic rays, not solar radiation, so your comments are in the wrong thread.
 
2012-03-11 02:38:01 PM

RandomAxe: this stuff from TFA is about cosmic rays, not solar radiation, so your comments are in the wrong thread.


quizzical-dog.jpg
 
2012-03-11 03:01:28 PM
4, June 2009

Wonder what the results have been in the almost 3 years since this video.
 
2012-03-11 03:15:31 PM
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ (new window)

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.h tm l (new window)

Geneva, 25 August 2011. In a paper published in the journal Nature today, the CLOUD1 experiment at CERN2 has reported its first results. The CLOUD experiment has been designed to study the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of atmospheric aerosols - tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere - under controlled laboratory conditions. Atmospheric aerosols are thought to be responsible for a large fraction of the seeds that form cloud droplets. Understanding the process of aerosol formation is therefore important for understanding the climate.

The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation. Precise measurements such as these are important in achieving a quantitative understanding of cloud formation, and will contribute to a better assessment of the effects of clouds in climate models.

"These new results from CLOUD are important because we've made a number of first observations of some very important atmospheric processes," said the experiment's spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby. "We've found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations - even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

Atmospheric aerosols play an important role in the climate. Aerosols reflect sunlight and produce cloud droplets. Additional aerosols would therefore brighten clouds and extend their lifetime. By current estimates, about half of all cloud droplets begin with the clustering of molecules that are present in the atmosphere only in minute amounts. Some of these embryonic clusters eventually grow large enough to become the seeds for cloud droplets. Trace sulphuric acid and ammonia vapours are thought to be important, and are used in all atmospheric models, but the mechanism and rate by which they form clusters together with water molecules have remained poorly understood until now.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth's surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone - even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.

"It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn't due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone," said Kirkby. "Now it's vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job."
 
2012-03-11 05:34:33 PM
Should we all expect a new Maunder/Dalton Minimum soon?

Hate the cold.
 
2012-03-11 06:14:05 PM
At least three times he emphatically stated a disclaimer that he is not proposing any
"answers" in his talk, just raising "questions".

The palpable paranoia of such members of the entrenched scientific community of even presenting data that might suggest a divergence from the prevailing climate change model is contemptible. What a disgusting ethos of inquiry that is the stagnant swamp of modern science.
 
2012-03-11 06:22:39 PM
hudef:

At least three times he emphatically stated a disclaimer that he is not proposing any
"answers" in his talk, just raising "questions".

The palpable paranoia of such members of the entrenched scientific community of even presenting data that might suggest a divergence from the prevailing climate change model is contemptible. What a disgusting ethos of inquiry that is the stagnant swamp of modern science.


Or perhaps he's worried that deniers will take anything he says and wrongfully use it as "proof" that CO2 isn't involved in AGW.

Oh wait... They're already doing that.
 
2012-03-11 06:36:02 PM

hudef: At least three times he emphatically stated a disclaimer that he is not proposing any
"answers" in his talk, just raising "questions".

The palpable paranoia of such members of the entrenched scientific community of even presenting data that might suggest a divergence from the prevailing climate change model is contemptible. What a disgusting ethos of inquiry that is the stagnant swamp of modern science.


It's not paranoia when the data have already been cited as "proof" that AGW is a hoax. Do a Google search for "svensmark" (or just peruse a few Fark threads on the subject) and see the derp on parade.
 
2012-03-11 08:13:07 PM
KIRBY IS HERE!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-03-11 08:41:29 PM
RoyBatty:
Indeed recent satellite observations - although disputed - suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.

The CLOUD experiment discussed in this video is from 2006. The presentation in the video was made in 2009. Last year (2011) a much better-controlled experiment showed unequivocally that there is a physical mechanism for cosmic ray production of nuclei for cloud formation. That was the only missing leg of Svensmark's hypothesis.

What this means is that it is essentially certain that the Sun's magnetic activity variation, which occurs in concert with the insolation variation, and sunspot activity, but is of considerably greater "swing" in variation, plays a very important role in planetary temperature.

For those still following the actual science in this issue, this makes Svensmark's hypothesis vastly superior to the standard AGW hypothesis. While the AGW hypothesis has been falsified for lack of correlation, there are a large number of people who have (erroneously) claimed that a hypothesis cannot be falsified until a better hypothesis is produced. Svensmark's hypothesis is exactly that. It will be interesting to see what chicanery will be employed to move the goalposts to a position to favor the political theory of AGW.
 
2012-03-11 08:51:16 PM
RandomAxe:
I get what you're saying, but solar variability's effects on climate change are not controversial, and several physical mechanisms are well-known -- simple insolation being the most obvious.

This is about the MAGNETIC variability of the Sun having an effect on Earth's temperature. That part has been left out of the CGMs, and is responsible for the contention that solar variability is insufficient to explain the recently-ended warming. It IS insufficient, if you only look at insolation. Add in the cloud effects of cosmic rays as an amplifier, and the numbers line up quite nicely.

What's controversial is how significant these effects are in comparison to anthropogenics and our current situation. But even that isn't all that controversial. Anthropogenics seem strongly to be far more relevant to here and now.

Why is that? Because politicians WANT it to be anthropogenic? That's hardly a scientific reason.

In any case, this stuff from TFA is about cosmic rays, not solar radiation, so your comments are in the wrong thread.

*SIGH* You TOTALLY missed the point. When the Sun is active, it is ALSO active magnetically. When the Sun is magnetically active, it blocks cosmic rays from reaching Earth. Cosmic rays cause more clouds to be generated. Clouds (low tropospheric clouds, anyway) increase Earth's albedo, cooling the planet. To sort out all the up and down business, when the Sun is active, it is also magnetically active, which ALSO heats the Earth. Cosmic rays, modulated by the Sun, are an AMPLIFIER of insolation.

That means they are VERY relevant to this thread.
 
2012-03-11 08:56:11 PM
Agarista:
Should we all expect a new Maunder/Dalton Minimum soon?

Hate the cold.

Sorry, yes, that is most likely where we are headed as we post here, if you ignore the anti-science Chicken Littles blathering about warming. Historically, Cycle 23 has been VERY inactive, and Cycle 24 is expected to be LESS active. Cycle 23 is also VERY long. The last time there was a cycle this long was right before the Dalton minimum. Move south.
 
2012-03-11 08:58:03 PM
GeneralJim:

*SIGH* You TOTALLY missed the point. When the Sun is active, it is ALSO active magnetically. When the Sun is magnetically active, it blocks cosmic rays from reaching Earth. Cosmic rays cause more clouds to be generated. Clouds (low tropospheric clouds, anyway) increase Earth's albedo, cooling the planet. To sort out all the up and down business, when the Sun is active, it is also magnetically active, which ALSO heats the Earth. Cosmic rays, modulated by the Sun, are an AMPLIFIER of insolation.

Does the Svensmark effect account for the level of warming observed?
 
2012-03-11 09:01:18 PM
hudef:
At least three times he emphatically stated a disclaimer that he is not proposing any
"answers" in his talk, just raising "questions".

The palpable paranoia of such members of the entrenched scientific community of even presenting data that might suggest a divergence from the prevailing climate change model is contemptible. What a disgusting ethos of inquiry that is the stagnant swamp of modern science.

CERN, when LAST year's results came out, ordered their scientists to refrain from making any speculations about what the experiment means for the AGW hypothesis. Incidentally, it simply drives another nail in AGW's coffin.

It's easy for me to have some sympathy for the scientists involved. They just want to do their science, but if ANYTHING directly challenges the AGW hypothesis, whoever it is challenging it has just cut off their own funding. That's a high price to pay for excess honesty. The problem is the political interference with science, NOT that scientists can be extorted. Stop the extortioners, and the problem goes away.
 
2012-03-11 09:06:12 PM
maxheck:
Or perhaps he's worried that deniers will take anything he says and wrongfully use it as "proof" that CO2 isn't involved in AGW.

Oh wait... They're already doing that.

So, Mr. Wizard, what WOULD it take to falsify AGW in your eyes? There's no correlation between long-term carbon dioxide and planetary temperature, and the micro-correlation we see in ice cores has carbon dioxide FOLLOWING temperature, not leading it. Correlation factors between carbon dioxide and temperature come in in the upper twenties, while correlation to solar activity is in the lower seventies.

The question is: Why is carbon dioxide still being considered as anything but a bit-player in the control of planetary temperature? And, of course, the answer is MONEY, not science.
 
2012-03-11 09:18:54 PM
Uh, isn't this what Wilson's cloud chamber (new window) showed in the 1930s, only taken to the planetary level?
 
2012-03-11 09:21:53 PM

Bacon Bits: Uh, isn't this what Wilson's cloud chamber (new window) showed in the 1930s, only taken to the planetary level?


Example video showing the phenomenon (new window).
 
2012-03-11 09:23:10 PM
GeneralJim:

maxheck:

Or perhaps he's worried that deniers will take anything he says and wrongfully use it as "proof" that CO2 isn't involved in AGW.

Oh wait... They're already doing that.


So, Mr. Wizard, what WOULD it take to falsify AGW in your eyes? There's no correlation between long-term carbon dioxide and planetary temperature, and the micro-correlation we see in ice cores has carbon dioxide FOLLOWING temperature, not leading it. Correlation factors between carbon dioxide and temperature come in in the upper twenties, while correlation to solar activity is in the lower seventies.

The question is: Why is carbon dioxide still being considered as anything but a bit-player in the control of planetary temperature? And, of course, the answer is MONEY, not science.


Yes, because it's the scientists who have money on the line, not the fossil fuel industry and the coin-operated think tanks they fund, or the 50-cent-per post people who spread FUD on the topic.

I'll ask again: Does the Svensmark effect account for the level of warming observed?
 
2012-03-11 09:33:30 PM
maxheck:
Does the Svensmark effect account for the level of warming observed?

Yep. And, it's nice to give it that name. It makes sense. Good call.
 
2012-03-11 09:33:50 PM

GeneralJim: *SIGH* You TOTALLY missed the point. When the Sun is active, it is ALSO active magnetically. When the Sun is magnetically active, it blocks cosmic rays from reaching Earth. Cosmic rays cause more clouds to be generated. Clouds (low tropospheric clouds, anyway) increase Earth's albedo, cooling the planet. To sort out all the up and down business, when the Sun is active, it is also magnetically active, which ALSO heats the Earth. Cosmic rays, modulated by the Sun, are an AMPLIFIER of insolation.

That means they are VERY relevant to this thread.


You've been asked twice, specifically: Does the observed variability in cosmic-ray flux account for the observed variability in global temperature?

/and thanks for confirming my earlier post
 
2012-03-11 09:35:01 PM
Bacon Bits:
Uh, isn't this what Wilson's cloud chamber (new window) showed in the 1930s, only taken to the planetary level?

Why, yes, yes it is.
 
2012-03-11 09:38:31 PM

GeneralJim: maxheck: Does the Svensmark effect account for the level of warming observed?
Yep. And, it's nice to give it that name. It makes sense. Good call.


So solar activity has been steadily increasing over the last 100 years? Why haven't we noticed that?
 
2012-03-11 09:40:40 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
You've been asked twice, specifically: Does the observed variability in cosmic-ray flux account for the observed variability in global temperature?

Yeah, and when I read it I replied. Do you have a conspiracy theory about that? Not answering your question (asked 17 minutes after my original comment) immediately mean something? FYI, I made a late lunch, and am now eating it.

Gee, who else makes a fetish of message timing in Fark threads?
 
2012-03-11 09:42:03 PM
What if we are headed to another Maunder Minimum and the extra CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the climate from repeating what happened the last time? Would anyone consider it a bad thing because it's not natural?
 
2012-03-11 09:44:36 PM
revrendjim:
GeneralJim: maxheck: Does the Svensmark effect account for the level of warming observed?

Yep. And, it's nice to give it that name. It makes sense. Good call.

So solar activity has been steadily increasing over the last 100 years? Why haven't we noticed that?

Actually, "we" have -- where have YOU been?

www.seafriends.org.nz
 
2012-03-11 09:44:57 PM

GeneralJim: maxheck: Does the Svensmark effect account for the level of warming observed?
Yep.


[citation needed]

And, it's nice to give it that name. It makes sense. Good call.

Piltdown man has a catchy name, too...and about as much relevance to the AGW discussion. Unless you actually have some relevant data to suggest otherwise.
 
2012-03-11 09:48:13 PM
MarkEC:
What if we are headed to another Maunder Minimum and the extra CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the climate from repeating what happened the last time? Would anyone consider it a bad thing because it's not natural?

We SHOULD warm up the planet, if we could. But, there's no way to squeeze a tax out of people for helping... The whole impetus behind AGW is political at this point.
 
2012-03-11 09:52:44 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
Piltdown man has a catchy name, too...and about as much relevance to the AGW discussion. Unless you actually have some relevant data to suggest otherwise.

Thanks for outing yourself as a 'tard, Monkey Boy. Showing that the activity of the Sun, MORE than just the insolation, can account for essentially all of the warming of the last century is ASTONISHINGLY relevant to the falsified AGW hypothesis. Too bad you can't see that. Anything you say from this point is actually irrelevant.
 
2012-03-11 09:53:57 PM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: You've been asked twice, specifically: Does the observed variability in cosmic-ray flux account for the observed variability in global temperature?
Yeah, and when I read it I replied. Do you have a conspiracy theory about that? Not answering your question (asked 17 minutes after my original comment) immediately mean something? FYI, I made a late lunch, and am now eating it.

Gee, who else makes a fetish of message timing in Fark threads?


My post is stamped 20 seconds after yours. Unless I read and replied to the previous post in less time than that, your argument is invalid.

And "yep" is your best answer?
 
2012-03-11 10:03:00 PM

GeneralJim: Thanks for outing yourself as a 'tard, Monkey Boy. Showing that the activity of the Sun, MORE than just the insolation, can account for essentially all of the warming of the last century is ASTONISHINGLY relevant to the falsified AGW hypothesis. Too bad you can't see that none of your screeds has shown anything of the sort.


You keep repeating that Svensmark shows this and Svensmark demonstrates some other, but you either can't or won't provide any actual evidence that real-world changes in cosmic-ray flux are responsible for the observed changes in climate. And until you do so...

Anything you say from this point is actually irrelevant.

But that's never stopped you before, and I don't expect anything different this time.
 
2012-03-11 10:08:49 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: You've been asked twice, specifically: Does the observed variability in cosmic-ray flux account for the observed variability in global temperature?

Yeah, and when I read it I replied. Do you have a conspiracy theory about that? Not answering your question (asked 17 minutes after my original comment) immediately mean something? FYI, I made a late lunch, and am now eating it.

Gee, who else makes a fetish of message timing in Fark threads?


My post is stamped 20 seconds after yours. Unless I read and replied to the previous post in less time than that, your argument is invalid.

Well, thanks for proving my point. Nobody but Monkey Boy wraps themselves around the axle so well over obscure points of timing that are utterly irrelevant.

My original message in this thread: 2012-03-11 08:41:29 PM
Question asked: 2012-03-11 08:58:03 PM

Time between is less than 17 minutes. None of my arguments depends upon message timing, other than my statement that it was about seventeen minutes between my first appearance, and the question, which it CLEARLY was. All that convoluted crap in your head is irrelevant, and the product of warped thinking, nothing more. Keeping that immense alt farm is either a cause, or a symptom, of your other mental failures. You should have it looked at.


And "yep" is your best answer?

Yep. It's both clear and unequivocal.
 
2012-03-11 10:10:52 PM

MarkEC: What if we are headed to another Maunder Minimum and the extra CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the climate from repeating what happened the last time? Would anyone consider it a bad thing because it's not natural?


If we're heading to a new Maunder-level solar minimum, it will not be a repeat of the Little Ice Age. Most of the climate change associated with this time period was driven by volcanic activity and not by the Maunder Minimum, which only contributed about 0.5 F to the overall cooling.

Link (new window)
 
2012-03-11 10:12:52 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:

GeneralJim: Thanks for outing yourself as a 'tard, Monkey Boy. Showing that the activity of the Sun, MORE than just the insolation, can account for essentially all of the warming of the last century is ASTONISHINGLY relevant to the falsified AGW hypothesis. Too bad you can't see that none of your screeds has shown anything of the sort.

You keep repeating that Svensmark shows this and Svensmark demonstrates some other, but you either can't or won't provide any actual evidence that real-world changes in cosmic-ray flux are responsible for the observed changes in climate. And until you do so...

Anything you say from this point is actually irrelevant.

But that's never stopped you before, and I don't expect anything different this time.


That's all he can do, since even the people who cite Svensmark the most still admit that it's only an amplifying factor and not a direct forcing the way CO2 is. Basically he's trying to say "Look over here! This also causes warming!" to draw attention away from the root cause.
 
2012-03-11 10:23:25 PM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: You've been asked twice, specifically: Does the observed variability in cosmic-ray flux account for the observed variability in global temperature?

Yeah, and when I read it I replied. Do you have a conspiracy theory about that? Not answering your question (asked 17 minutes after my original comment) immediately mean something? FYI, I made a late lunch, and am now eating it.

Gee, who else makes a fetish of message timing in Fark threads?

My post is stamped 20 seconds after yours. Unless I read and replied to the previous post in less time than that, your argument is invalid.
Well, thanks for proving my point. Nobody but Monkey Boy wraps themselves around the axle so well over obscure points of timing that are utterly irrelevant.

My original message in this thread: 2012-03-11 08:41:29 PM
Question asked: 2012-03-11 08:58:03 PM

Time between is less than 17 minutes. None of my arguments depends upon message timing, other than my statement that it was about seventeen minutes between my first appearance, and the question, which it CLEARLY was. All that convoluted crap in your head is irrelevant, and the product of warped thinking, nothing more. Keeping that immense alt farm is either a cause, or a symptom, of your other mental failures. You should have it looked at.


In those 17 minutes, you made six posts, none of which answered the question which had been asked. But in the world according to GeneralJim, the fact that your sixth post went up while I was still writing my response to a post that predated any of yours makes me a tinfoil-wearing conspirophobic alt-monkey. Or something.

And "yep" is your best answer?
Yep. It's both clear and unequivocal.


It's also singularly uninformative. Which makes it the ultimate distillation of your entire contribution to Fark.
 
2012-03-11 10:26:48 PM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Piltdown man has a catchy name, too...and about as much relevance to the AGW discussion. Unless you actually have some relevant data to suggest otherwise.
Thanks for outing yourself as a 'tard, Monkey Boy. Showing that the activity of the Sun, MORE than just the insolation, can account for essentially all of the warming of the last century is ASTONISHINGLY relevant to the falsified AGW hypothesis. Too bad you can't see that. Anything you say from this point is actually irrelevant.


It's funny that you totally missed the point, and yet you're calling people tards left and right

The specific point of the findings in TFA was to demonstrate that a mechanism exists, and did not investigate to what degree the mechanism is responsible for any given warming. Indeed, one of the findings in TFA was that their comsic-ray mechanism DID NOT work the way they thought it would at lower altitudes. The authors specifically state that their results to not provide a causal explanation for the observed global warming, and give several very good reasons why.

This isn't to say that your hypothesis is wrong- it's just to say that we don't know whether it's right or wrong. There are other models and experiments that you can do in order to test this, but they haven't done it yet. Unless you have some secret research none of the rest of us know about, you're taking a proposed mechanism and automagically claiming that it's the major cause of warming.

It's the onus of any counter-culture hypothesis to demonstrate why it should be accepted over the common consensus. The solar activity hypothesis has not yet done this (I am NOT claiming the hypothesis is untrue, so please don't set up some kind of strawman). You're welcome to take sides on the issue, but please don't put words into the mouths of the scientists and please refrain from hasty generalizations.
 
2012-03-11 10:27:49 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
You keep repeating that Svensmark shows this and Svensmark demonstrates some other, but you either can't or won't provide any actual evidence that real-world changes in cosmic-ray flux are responsible for the observed changes in climate. And until you do so...

I've come to the conclusion that you actually believe the crap you write. Poor little guy. Well, in this case, I've put this up way more than once, but, one more time for you to ignore won't hurt anything, I suppose...

bp2.blogger.com


It has been clear all along that solar activity correlates MUCH better with temperature than do carbon dioxide levels. But the argument from the science-denying supporters of AGW has been that insolation changes cannot account for all the warming, which is true. That means that something ELSE, something BESIDES insolation, is doing a good bit of the warming. And, while SCIENCE says we should be looking for the REASONS that solar activity correlates so precisely with temperature, the pro-AGW anti-science crowd claimed that anything we did not know for certain was an anthropogenic effect. Svensmark pointed out the previously unknown mechanism, and CERN backed up his contention for the process. Now, solar activity WILL account for almost the entire warming of the last century, when this new mechanism is accounted for. So, what's your anti-science beef NOW?
 
2012-03-11 10:31:21 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
MarkEC: What if we are headed to another Maunder Minimum and the extra CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the climate from repeating what happened the last time? Would anyone consider it a bad thing because it's not natural?

If we're heading to a new Maunder-level solar minimum, it will not be a repeat of the Little Ice Age. Most of the climate change associated with this time period was driven by volcanic activity and not by the Maunder Minimum, which only contributed about 0.5 F to the overall cooling.

Link (new window)

Somehow, I just KNEW the study was by Michael Mann, the guy who has consistently tried to deny the long-established medieval warm period and little ice age. Mann is a fraud, and you can prove that for yourself. Don't listen to frauds -- you'll just look dumb.
 
2012-03-11 10:37:31 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
In those 17 minutes, you made six posts, none of which answered the question which had been asked. But in the world according to GeneralJim, the fact that your sixth post went up while I was still writing my response to a post that predated any of yours makes me a tinfoil-wearing conspirophobic alt-monkey. Or something.

No, it proves you're pathologically interested in post timing. Here you go Sherlock, check this out... I start at the beginning of a thread, and read down it, responding when the mood strikes me. You can check that, if you're anal enough. When I got to the post with the question, I answered it. Simple as that. Your bizarre fixation on trying to prove.... God knows WHAT with all your post timing crap is proof positive that you are Monkey Boy. Surely there aren't TWO sickos warped in exactly the same way.

And, WTF are you trying to prove, anyway? Clearly, I'm not avoiding the question, as I answered it as soon as I saw it. But, you just go ahead and wrap yourself ever tighter around that axle...
 
2012-03-11 10:42:21 PM
fwiw, and don't ask me, Judith Curry posted on a very similar topic yesterday:

21st century solar cooling

Posted on March 10, 2012 | 353 Comments

by Judith Curry

During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. (Jones et al. 2012).


Two recent papers suggest that there will be little impact in the 21st century from a decrease in solar insolation similar to what was seen in the Maunder minimum.
 
2012-03-11 10:42:43 PM
GeneralJim:

Interesting chart you have there of sunspot cycles... Especially interesting in that it's completely made up data that doesn't correspond to reality.

What blog did you get it from?
 
2012-03-11 10:47:53 PM
Fubini:
GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Piltdown man has a catchy name, too...and about as much relevance to the AGW discussion. Unless you actually have some relevant data to suggest otherwise.

Thanks for outing yourself as a 'tard, Monkey Boy. Showing that the activity of the Sun, MORE than just the insolation, can account for essentially all of the warming of the last century is ASTONISHINGLY relevant to the falsified AGW hypothesis. Too bad you can't see that. Anything you say from this point is actually irrelevant.

It's funny that you totally missed the point, and yet you're calling people tards left and right

Well, once... that would be left. Right? Where is that? Are you volunteering?

The specific point of the findings in TFA was to demonstrate that a mechanism exists, and did not investigate to what degree the mechanism is responsible for any given warming. Indeed, one of the findings in TFA was that their comsic-ray mechanism DID NOT work the way they thought it would at lower altitudes. The authors specifically state that their results to not provide a causal explanation for the observed global warming, and give several very good reasons why.

The VIDEO was from 2009, about an experiment in 2006. While is showed the process, it mostly showed that there were structural deficiencies of the 2006 experiment. Since then, using the knowledge gained in the analysis of the 2006 experiment, a much better run was made. Yes, I'm using results from THAT experiment. Svensmark estimates the amount of warming, and only needed verification of the process. The 2011 experiment was much more telling.

This isn't to say that your hypothesis is wrong- it's just to say that we don't know whether it's right or wrong. There are other models and experiments that you can do in order to test this, but they haven't done it yet. Unless you have some secret research none of the rest of us know about, you're taking a proposed mechanism and automagically claiming that it's the major cause of warming.

I wouldn't call CERN's 2011 CLOUD experiment "secret research," but you can if you want. Progress happens, you know.

It's the onus of any counter-culture hypothesis to demonstrate why it should be accepted over the common consensus. The solar activity hypothesis has not yet done this (I am NOT claiming the hypothesis is untrue, so please don't set up some kind of strawman). You're welcome to take sides on the issue, but please don't put words into the mouths of the scientists and please refrain from hasty generalizations.

No, AGW has the burden of proof. And, since carbon dioxide levels don't correlate with temperature on the gross scale, and do so IN REVERSE on the micro level, carbon dioxide level changes as a major player in planetary temperature has been falsified. Svensmark's hypothesis has not yet been falsified.
 
2012-03-11 10:49:18 PM

GeneralJim: Don't listen to frauds -- you'll just look dumb.


Truer words have never been spoken.

/wait, did I say 'true'? I meant 'ironic'
 
2012-03-11 10:50:50 PM
maxheck:
GeneralJim:

Interesting chart you have there of sunspot cycles... Especially interesting in that it's completely made up data that doesn't correspond to reality.

What blog did you get it from?

Really? Have something other than bloviation to counter it? If so, cough up.
 
2012-03-11 10:59:21 PM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: Don't listen to frauds -- you'll just look dumb.

Truer words have never been spoken.

/wait, did I say 'true'? I meant 'ironic'

You're suggesting that listening to frauds is the way to go? That would explain a lot about your posts...
 
2012-03-11 11:02:44 PM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: You keep repeating that Svensmark shows this and Svensmark demonstrates some other, but you either can't or won't provide any actual evidence that real-world changes in cosmic-ray flux are responsible for the observed changes in climate. And until you do so...
I've come to the conclusion that you actually believe the crap you write. Poor little guy. Well, in this case, I've put this up way more than once, but, one more time for you to ignore won't hurt anything, I suppose...


[bp2.blogger.com image 400x251]

It's interesting that your graph ends in the 1980s. It's also deceitful, since the correlation since that time has been trashed:

upload.wikimedia.org

And here's the Wikipedia article (new window) which shows the difference.

It has been clear all along that solar activity correlates MUCH better with temperature than do carbon dioxide levels.

You sure do love those unfounded assertions, don't you?

But the argument from the science-denying supporters of AGW has been that insolation changes cannot account for all the warming, which is true. That means that something ELSE, something BESIDES insolation, is doing a good bit of the warming.

You mean, like an increased greenhouse effect?

And, while SCIENCE says we should be looking for the REASONS that solar activity correlates so precisely with temperature, the pro-AGW anti-science crowd claimed that anything we did not know for certain was an anthropogenic effect.

[citation needed]

Svensmark pointed out the previously unknown mechanism, and CERN backed up his contention for the process. Now, solar activity WILL account for almost the entire warming of the last century, when this new mechanism is accounted for. So, what's your anti-science beef NOW?

This is perfect. Ladies and gentlemen, Farkers of all ages, feast your eyes upon some genuine irony.
 
Displayed 50 of 274 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report