This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Scientific Experiment By Top Laboratory Shows that Cosmic Rays Affect Cloud Formation, Which In Turn Affects Climate
Image Courtesy of CERN (Click for clearer image)
One of the world's most prestigious science labs - CERN - has found that cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
By way of background, the news magazine for the prestigious science journal Nature noted yesterday:
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
The Director of CERN's cosmic ray experiment (Jasper Kirby) now says that experiments show that cosmic rays significantly enhance the production of the particles which initiate the cloud-formation process. Specifically, cosmic rays allow the minute amounts of sulfuric acid and ammonia in the atmosphere to stabilize, and then - when the clusters grow to 20 molecules or more - become the structure around which moisture can condense so that clouds begin to form.
A press release from CERN states:
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.
A new scientific paper published today by the CERN team in Nature summarizes the results. And here is a chart graphically conveying the results of the experiment:
While the CERN findings are very important, they are not the first experimental results to confirm the affect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
A team of Danish scientists from Aarhus University and the National Space Institute published results in May showing the same basic mechanism:
[Danish scientists] have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models.
With the researchers’ new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun’s varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere.
***
In a climate chamber at Aarhus University, scientists have created conditions similar to the atmosphere at the height where low clouds are formed. By irradiating this artificial atmosphere with fast electrons from ASTRID – Denmark’s largest particle accelerator – they have also created conditions that resemble natural ones on this point.
Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, the researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols.
In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the small droplets the clouds consist of.
»
- advertisements -
That is resembling a real debate....
Now, read both sites, draw your conclusions from there....
At WUWT there is debate on GW, as a rule, the heavyweights argue AGW, the lightweights GW....As a rule I focus more on the AGW stuff...
From my experience as a scientist and my knowledge of physics, the anti-AGW sides tend to play more games and cherry pick data. Compare the number of data plots the two sides used.
Also note how Mann et al, is a non-issue....
Yup, the anti AGW religionist play more games and cherry pick data:
INTRODUCTION:
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]
Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."
Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]
“Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens' Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
End Selected Excerpts
Flakmeister: "the anti-AGW sides tend to play more games and cherry pick data."
If you compare Real Climate to WUWT, the latter is easier to make fun of because it is so lightly moderated that anti-warmist extremists can freely post their selectively chosen data and far-out theories. But the top commenters do a better job than the top commenters at RC, IMO. And the level of scrupulousness at more tightly moderated Scoffer sites like Climate Audit and Climate Etc. is pretty good. YMMV, depending on whose ox is getting gored.
Ooops, either Flaky has re appeared or NorthenSoul is switching identities. Shall we do the dance Flaky?
Anti-AGW tolls are only matched by pro-AGW-trolls when it comes to ignorant spouting of gibberish.
It will also be known that they also affect the earth's core and have something to do with earthquakes.
Studies have been done to show increased earthquakes in periods of high solar activity.
I wrote this today, but I would be greatful for ADDITIONAL LINKS:
Can Solar Activity Cause Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Extreme Weather?
I touched on that today in another post:
The Next Scientific Frontier: Sun-Earth Interactions
I'd be greatful for any links!
Prof. H. Svensmark of the U of Denmark wrote of this years ago and related that due to the interaction of the sun and cosmic rays, the Romans flourished under exceptional climate conditions whereas the cloud formed through these interactions caused (in part) the cold cloudy years of the dark age.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
There's a terrific couple of threads on WUWT (Watts Up With That), a scorcher-scam scoffer site, that deal with every aspect of this finding in knowledgeable terms (aside from the usual quota of lightweight "peanut gallery" comments). In particular, they sarcastically and amusingly rebut the contentions of the "nonsensus" (Real Climate) position that "there's nothing to see here." Here are the links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-conf...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experi...
Yep, and you will see that the debate that exists at WUWT is about AGW, not GW. GW is accepted, after all, the data is telling us things are warming up...
Edit: The only guys that full blown deniers of everything have very traceable ties to the fossil fuel industry.
So the best we can do is charge the sun with global warming.
Then charge man with being an accessory after the fact.
Sorry Flakmeister, the only guys that are full blown deniers are not just those tied to the fossil fuel industry. In fact, some companies, such as BP, support the AGW hypothesis. But go ahead and trace their links to oil companies, I dare you :-)
Anyways, here is an excerpt from the senate minority report of 2010
But let meThe distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences;
10
astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party‘s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
The NAS has come under fire for its lobbying practices. See: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & Cicerone's Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group -- 'political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov't funding' MIT's Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked NAS president Cicerone in his Congressional testimony in November 2010. Lindzen testified: "Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide." [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes =Corrupted Science‘ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]
While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate
11
variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.
Scientists caution that the key to remember is "climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables," not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. "As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. "The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors," RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]
# #
Scientists Speak: More Than 1,000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Released December 8, 2010. [Note: The 2009 and 2007 Report
is reprinted in full following the 2010 report]
This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."
[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of
views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]
UN IPCC.s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors, is a metallurgical engineer, and the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium, dissented from man-made global warming fears in 2009. .We‘re not scientifically there yet,. Tripp said according to a July 16, 2009 article. Tripp said, .There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man-made. =It well may be, but we're not scientifically there yet.‘. Tripp also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming. Another article noted, .Tripp's message on climate change is Gore's polar opposite.. .Despite what you may have heard in the media, there
12
is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem," Tripp said. "Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years. ... There are indications, there are options, but if you are looking for hard scientific facts, you are still a long ways away." (LINK) (LINK) [Note: Tripp was lead author of subsection 4.5 in Volume 3 (Industrial Processes and Product Use)]
NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, who is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace, totally rejected global warming claims. .Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!. Weinstein wrote on April 23, 2009. .The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate,. Weinstein wrote. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rejected global warming orthodoxy in 2010. .Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation,. Laughlin wrote in July 2010 in The American Scholar. Earth has suffered .all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict. Yet, the Earth is still here. It's a survivor...Earth doesn't care whether you turn off your AC, refrigerator and TV. It doesn't notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car,. Laughlin wrote. .You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations,. he added. .Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself,. Laughlin explained. He continued: .Global warming forecasts have the further difficulty that you can‘t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. In principle, changes in climate should show up in rainfall statistics, hurricane frequency, temperature records, and so forth. As a practical matter they don‘t, because weather patterns are dominated by large multi-year events in the oceans, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation, which have nothing to do with climate change. In order to test the predictions, you‘d have to separate these big effects from subtle, inexorable changes on scales of centuries, and nobody knows how to do that yet.. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)
Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth.s magnetic field, rejected man-made global warming claims in 2010. When asked in a July 15, 2010 interview if climate change is not man-made, Levitin responded: “Exactly; climate change is a physical process. Climate is in fact like the Earth‘s energy budget. The Earth
13
receives most energy from the Sun and some energy from its depths – as we see in earthquakes and other reactions taking place deep inside the Earth. That energy warms the oceans that store the warmth on the Earth‘s surface. This is a kind of energy budget consisting of elements that come and go.. Levitin continued: .The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate. However, the energy budget is very under-studied because there is only a small range of observations used to measure it. This is a very complicated process. Today we cannot measure it with 99% accuracy. Our current measurements are only 10%-15% accurate. The change must be at least 1% to change the climate. The planet‘s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. Some processes take seconds and other years. You cannot check man‘s state of health in a matter of seconds; the process could take a fortnight and even then the result will not be definitive. The same goes for climate change. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.. (LINK) Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency,” rejected man-made climate claims in 2010. Luis Lino declared it .global warming fraud. and called climate fears an .imaginary threat.. .AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks,. he wrote on November 14, 2010. .Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences,. he added. .History offers a gloomy precedent of such poisoning of science by ideology and special interests: the infamous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union, the ruthless opposition to genetics headed by Trofim D. Lysenko and his cohorts between 1930s and 1960s...the physical elimination of stubborn scientists who resisted the 'consensual official line' (the =skeptics‘ of the time)',. he added. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)
Ok... the Senate Minority Report.... now there is a non-political source..
Rolls eyes....
No more non political than the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.
>GW is accepted, after all, the data is telling us things are warming up...
Over what timescale is it warming? 1 second? 1 year? 1000 years? 1,000,000 years? No doubt it is both warming and cooling when looked at over various time scales.
"However the results of studies announced in 2008 show that due to tidal interaction between Sun and Earth, Earth would actually fall back into a lower orbit, and get engulfed and incorporated inside the sun before the Sun reaches its largest size. Before this happens, Earth's biosphere will have long been destroyed by the Sun's steady increase in brightness as its hydrogen supply dwindles and its core contracts, even before the transition to a red giant. After just over 1 billion years, the extra solar energy input will cause Earth's oceans to evaporate and the hydrogen from the water to be lost permanently to space, with total loss of water by 3 billion years. Earth's atmosphere and lithosphere will become like those of Venus. Over another billion years, most of the atmosphere will get lost in space as well; ultimately leaving Earth as a desiccated, dead planet with a surface of molten rock."
Hey, global warming is going to happen any way. So party on, dudes.
To answer your question, its been warming up since the end of the last ice age about 10000 years ago. On a time scale of 12 hours since it now day here, so its warmer. And not having any clouds today gives a higher T than yesterday when we had clouds.
The way to think about it: clouds in the day: we're OK, its cool man!
clouds at night, not too chilly, just right, but clear nights give me the frights when I don't have on my insulating tights.
And water is the major greenhouse gas of course. About 100x as much IR absorbance cross-section compared to CO2 and there's so much more of it too. And water is what forms clouds.
Yep, without the water vapour, we would be (not) living on an iceball... Water vapour is not forcing though, it is in equilibrium...
Flaky, and you know this how?
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)
A cut and paste for you:
Leif Ericsson: It is getting a bit chilly here in Greenland, the wheat does not grow as it did and the cattle are becoming thin as the grass hardly grows.
Eric the red: Then take your ship south and west my son, find the land called Vinland,where grapes grow wild and it is often warm.
Vinland = Nova Scotia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C5%93nlendinga_saga
There is evidence that Vinland was Newfoundland. In the early sixties archaeologists found a Norse settlement at L'Anse Aux Meadows in Newfoundland.
One problem of Newfoundland as Vinland is that there are no grape vines on Newfoundland today. But Farley Mowat found a report by a French botanist from the 17th century, describing wild grapes growing there.
This fits in with evidence that the climate was considerably warmer a thousand years ago, such as vinyards in England and farms on Greenland.
Yep, they may very well been grapes there.. I provide Petra as a counter example, same era but, different outcome.
Why don't you look up ENSO and local climate extremes....
What about the Medieval warm period? Couldn't make that one disappear, could you?
Strong evidence that it was a local not global phenomena...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Medieval-Warmish-Period-In-Pictures-.html
Sorry....
Ok, like I said, become Dr. Acula at two climate sites, one pro-AGW and one skeptical. I pointed them out. Post your stuff and let's see how it goes....
I know you are no dummy, quite capable of magnificent obsfuscation. Let me see you try it at those sites...
Unlike you, Flaky, posting AGW propaganda on websites is not our full time job. Nevertheless, when I get bored and feel like arguing AGW, I have another place to go. Thank You.
Go lick the hands of your masters, toadie and shill.
Almost every MBA I've met is a whore and a shill.... Heartland payin' you?
If all you can do is waste time firebombing threads, it is very clear who has emerged ahead.
Yes it is clear who is ahead.....
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Email to a Friendhttp://w.sharethis.com/images/share-icon-16x16.png?CXNID=1000014.0NXC) !important; background-attachment: scroll !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-color: initial !important; padding-top: 1px; padding-right: 5px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 22px; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat !important;" title="ShareThis via email, AIM, social bookmarking and networking sites, etc." href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/e...">ShareThis
The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009.
the bbc broadcast a fascinating and politically incorrect documentary on the global warming fraud conspiracy in which it debunked every shibboleth of the global warming conspirators.....the documentary concluded that sunspots and solar activity are far more material to global climate change than the negligible production of man made gases....in fact the ocean is far and away the largest producer of co gases.
the documentary also covered the lies and death threats issued by the global warming cabal and how it systematically destroys the careers of those who do not bow down in worship to its nincompoop lies.
global warming is not necessarily bad either as it has beneficial effects on flora and fauna. bbc also reported that even though there is no reliable way to measure the planet's temperature, such measurements point to cooling. does anyone remember the coming ice age hocus pocus from the 1970s?
in any event, the earth's climate is beyond man's reach. he cannot materially alter it with current practices and technologies.
>in any event, the earth's climate is beyond man's reach.
At enormous cost, people might be able to alter the Earth's albedo by a tiny amount: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Weather_Modification_Office
Wait...does this mean "solar" is even more ambiguous than before? Sounds bullish.
so now we just need a source of cosmic rays, and we can create instant clouds and rain! awesome!!
Type 1a supernova would do it. The star IK Pegasi, 150 light years away, could go at any time.
Fukishima neutron beams help at all?
The science is settled, Al Gore won't read the note.
The consequences are pretty simple. A key belief supporting global warming theories is that the solar cycle cannot affect the earth's climate enough to account for recent temperature changes. This result contradicts that idea, and gives a mechanism for the solar cycle to have a very strong effect on the earth's climate. Since the solar cycles have been particularly large over the last 40 years, this effect shows how the solar cycle could have accounted for all the temperature rises we have seen during the last few decades. In other words, increasing CO2 may have done nothing.
We are currently experiencing the first low solar cycle in many decades, so perhaps we will see a slight decreaase in temerpatures world wide due to this effect.
This really shows that climate science is NOT SETTLED, as much as Al Gore and IPCC would like us to believe it is.
You do understand the difference between GW and AGW? Do you? GW is a done deal, the serious debate is about the extent of AGW....
As a physicist I understand the difference perfectly. The question is WHAT IS CAUSING GW? This result opens the possibility that ALL the GW seen to date is due to the Solar Cycle, rather than anthropoenic sources of CO2. This hypotheisis of cosmic rays increasing cloud cover is quite old, but lacked the final experimetnal evidence to support it. This experiment provides evidence that it is not only real, but is a very strong effect. They have a long way to go to prove it absolutely increases cloud cover, but this opens up the debate in a way I consider very healthy.
Flakmeister claims he is a physicist, ddtuttle. Just ask him to produce his bio, I would be curious re your feedback.
No, Flaky, GW is not a done deal. And AGW is unproven. Sorry to rain on your parade.
Hey, go to an AGW skeptic site and run that around real climate scientists that do work on stuff. You ass will be laughed out the door..
The only GW deniers are the kooks or the shills funded by the fossil fuel interests.... oh, yeah, and you. Are you a kook or a shill. You are clearly training to be shill, we'll see.
Yes, Flaky, we will see. Who knows, one day we may be friends <g>
I doubt that very much. I have very discerning tastes in my friends and associates...
Keep on making an ass of yourself....
Yes, Flaky, I have no doubt that you like to taste your friends......The only question is whether you ask them to wash first <g>
Like AchtungAffen said, we are just coming out of an unusually long and deep solar MINIMUM. So......based on the theory in the article, Earth should be cooler - not hotter.
And the serfs saw the truth... and they trashed it. It was just too much.
You mean solar cycles as in our actual solar cycle, you know, big historical minimum. Yeah, same minimum that went with RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES... hmmm, right?
Real Climate tackled this stuff back in 2006:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
Old news, really. Wouldn't get far in scientific circles now. Only on ZH.
Have fun with it. Doesn't matter. Bad things are coming, get your game on.