The Other Climate Theory

Once again, you seem to be missing the point that aerosols and clouds are not the same thing. The experiment had to do with aerosols, not clouds. What the experiment showed was that cosmic rays nucleate aerosols. What the experiment failed to show was that cosmic ray aerosols (which are very small) can condense cloud droplets (which are much, much bigger).

Although the result is new, it's not especially surprising, and not controversial as far as I know. There's a lot we don't know about aerosols, so yes, when you're modeling aerosols this data needs to be taken into account. But again, this says nothing about clouds, and nothing about climate.

 

Love that post!! Good video.

 

Are you kidding?

So the experiment has nothing to do with cloud creation?

 

That's exactly right -- the particular experiment being discussed here has nothing to do with actual cloud creation in the atmosphere, as the aerosols formed in the experiment were far too small to initiate condensation.

And regarding the term "cloud chamber", it should be noted that cloud-chambers are not intended to be used to investigate atmospheric cloud formation. (The basics of "cloud chamber" operation are typically covered in an introductory physics textbook.)

 

You should apply the same thinking to AGW.

 

AGW has a scientific foundation going back nearly two centuries, and is solidly supported by many independent lines of evidence. It is far more than just a speculative "hypothesis".

People who reject the mountains of scientific evidence supporting AGW are ignorant, incompetent, or downright "tinfoil-hat" delusional -- without exception. (That's an inclusive "or", btw.)

 

Actually AGW is a speculative hypothesis that has never been proven yet proponents are constantly trying to shove it down everyone's throat. There are tens of thousands of scientists and climatologists who have rejected AGW altogether. AGW is nothing more than an excuse for so-called 'environmentalists' to set up fake scare scenarios (see Al Gore) in order to fleece folks. (see Carbon credits).

You mean 'scientific evidence' like the now totally debunked 'hockey stick' graph? OR the manipulated computer models?

 

How has the hockey-stick graph been "debunked"? Pleas provide specifics.

 

Suggest you actually go the CERN website and read up a bit on what they're doing. The experiment and its purpose is pretty much spelled out.

And the "cloud chamber" they're using is the first of its kind, designed specifically to determine if cosmic rays impact cloud creations. So, since obviously your introductory physics textbook isn't covering what they're doing, why not check it out for yourself. There are plenty of links to CERN on this thread or you can just the mystical Google to hunt it down.

 

Why is it legitimate...? please provide specifics.

 

This particular experiment does not say anything about the connection between cosmic rays and cloud-formation -- that comes right from the lead author of the paper -- link here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cloud-formation-may-be-linked-to-cosmic-rays

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that shows *any* correlation between recent temperature increases and cosmic ray activity. To demonstrate any connection between recent temperature increases and cosmic ray activity, you would have to show a decline in cosmic ray activity over the past few decades. And there has been none -- if you average out the 11-year sunspot modulation effect, you will see no change in cosmic ray levels, all the while global-average temperatures have increased significantly.

The bottom line is, the experiment hasn't even come close to demonstrating any link between cosmic ray activity and cloud formation, and even if it did, all of the recent temperature and cosmic ray data rule out cosmic ray activity as a cause of the recent global-warming anyway.

 

You were the one claiming that it has been debunked, and I'm asking you to give specifics as to why you think so. You made the claim -- it is up to *you* to support it.

 

OK...

Data from the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age was left out.

Temperature and tree rings (two diverse data sets) were inaccurately combined into a single series.

Mann's paper was not critically reviewed. The 'green' industry made sure it was accepted and that anyone who objected was a 'denier.'

Mann's graph was originally meant to represent only the Northern Hemisphere anyway but the graph was re-published by U. S. National Assessment as a GLOBAL CO2 temperature change.

The wide error margins in Mann's original graph were left out as well.

There is much more but I have already wasted time repeating things you should already know.

How about you tell me how living out critical data sets can yield an accurate graph?

 

Think you should reread the thread, at least my comments. Or actually read the CERN which you clearly haven't based on the comment above.

I think you should reread the thread, at least my comments. Or act

As far as the comment by Dr. Kirkby, lets rehash shall we.

Pretty clear what he's saying. The experiment is in its early stages and there are more variables they have to figure out (you'd know this if you read the CERN data summary). So do we get it? Whats been released is in no way near the conclusion of the experiment.

So again, this doesn't prove anything except the fact that the scientific consensus on cloud formation is wrong. The results thus far have demonstrated that. Dr. Kirkby has stated that.

 

Temperature and tree-ring data inaccurately combined? Don't be silly. Anyone who has read Mann's hockey-stick paper (at least anyone with reasonable reading-comprehension skills) would see clearly what was proxy vs. instrumental data. Since the tree-ring data Mann used stopped at 1980, why wouldn't he use post-1980 instrumental data (which were properly labelled, BTW)? And given that instrumental data were used to calibrate the proxy data, it is only reasonable to plot the instrumental data along with the proxy data.

This is nothing more than tinfoil-hat looniness. Anyone who would actually make this claim on a public forum is too delusional to take seriously. The only reasonable reaction to an idiotic, delusional claim like this is to point and laugh.

(Remainder of post, which may or may not be true, deleted -- no point in wasting any more time with someone who is this delusional -- best let him go outside and look for black helicopters).

 

You are simply delusional. We have high-resolution cosmic ray *and* temperature data for the past few decades, and the clear and obvious conclusion (regardless of the ultimate results of Kirby's research) is that there is *no significant correlation* between cosmic ray activity and global-average temperatures for at least the past 50 years. If there actually is any historical correlation between cosmic rays and temperature, it is so weak that it would be swamped by the CO2-forced global-warming observed over at least the past 50 years. The currently-available data make that painfully obvious.

Anyone who can figure out how to download and plot cosmic-ray and temperature data should be able to determine that.

The bottom line here is (emphasizing again for the sane lurkers here), if there were any significant causal connection between cosmic-ray activity and recent increases in global-average temperatures, **we'd see it clearly in the data already available to us**.

 

Because instrumental data is DIFFERENT that's why. Data collection is not the same, for instance. Many temperature collection stations were inaccurate or placed in areas that are now artificially heated by paving, AC unit exhausts, etc. Not to mention errors in collection.

Anyone who actually believes calling skeptics 'delusional' either has something to hide or is in abject denial. The only other possibility is a mental deficiency. Those who 'point and laugh' typically lack any kind of supporting evidence to support their POV.........

I see you can't refute my points so you descend to character assassination.

 

the latest evidence linking cosmic rays, clouds, and temps

 

like it really matters Bower? Just another paper showing that climate science is evolving and the CAGW theory is getting shakier and shakier. Every new paper that is discussed is another hole in the raft of CAGW, the science is far from settled. Another good cold winter and you can have your IPCC meeting in the waffle house off I77. And if you are following the weather patterns, invest in a good wool coat, you are going to need it for that trip to the waffle house.

not that short term weather equals long term climate but it sure does mean a lot in public opinion LOL

 

I asked before if you knew the difference between aerosols and clouds. From this post, the evidence suggests that the answer is no.

 

What do you mean by "combined"? I'm not following this point at all. Where were they combined? What was the inaccuracy involved?

In the first place, Mann's paper passed peer-review in Nature. In the second place, how is this even relevant to the question of whether the paper has been debunked or not?

If someone else misuses Mann's data, how does that debunk Mann?

Well I'm rather ignorant in all this, so it's okay to waste my time.

 

no linear correlation between outgoing long wave radiation and the increase in atmospheric Co2 since the 50's either. However there is a logarithmic correlation just as a laboratory experiment would show. Kinda shoots the models predicting doomsday and 3 C increases of temp if Co2 doubles right in the foot doesn't it

OLR raw data http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bi...=0&iarea=0&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries

Co2 at Mauna Loa ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

excell spreadsheet with the data plugged in http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/hartcode_61yearNOAA3.xls

 

^^ someone who totally gets it. Bravo!

 

If you still insists that theories need to be proven, I am not going to waste my time.
I do not care a rat's ass what tens of thousands of scientists think because there are even more that accept AGW. The the number of climatologists that accept AGW far outnumber the ones that do not.
PNAS

source