If cloud formation is impacted by cosmic ray flux, as suggested by new research from CERN, then this further complicates our understanding of drivers of global temperature:
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.”
The CLOUD experiment consists of a state-of-the-art chamber in which atmospheric conditions can be simulated with high control and precision, including the concentrations of trace vapours that drive aerosol formation. A beam of particles from CERN’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator provides an artificial and adjustable source of cosmic radiation.
Multimedia resources
◦Video News Release: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1364842
◦CERN News (video): http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1370582
◦Illustration: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1375156
◦Photos of the CLOUD experiment: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1374405, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221293
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“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 “
Interestingly, lower troposphere cloud cover correlates rather well with the solar cycle. Note the peaks in cloud cover at 1986, 1996 and a bit of one at 2003 match the cycle minimums. Changes by plus/minus 2% are quite a lot. This suggests while they don’t see a link, it is because they didn’t see it, not because one is not there.
I’d also note the Uni of Aarhus results and Prof Udipi Rao’s results both support the CERN results.
Is there anything new under the sun? Time to Google ‘Inigo Jones’ once again?
Maybe in a couple of decades it will be determined that, as some radicals already suspect, climate is fantastically complex. But don’t chuck out those computer models and carbon credits. They’ll make wonderfully nostalgic museum pieces along with Ken Done prints, Noelene Batley 45s, Poseidon scrips from the sixties etc.
Things just get worse and worse. How long before we have a tax on water and a plan to reduce the usage of it for the good of the planet. The aim will be 20% less water by 2020. Less splashing in swimming pools and so on.
Already happening Mike O. Heard of the Water Act 2007 & the Murray Darling Basin Plan?
Back in the good old days of phlogiston, and before, the “scientists” talked about how vapours caused and affected things. Good to know “scientists” are still trying to figure out how vapours affect things!!
Might be more to this.
“A graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds”
More (and graph) at
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Well that punches big hole in the credibilty of the alarmists
Doesnt mean that they have lost however…
They still control the appalling Peer (sorry mates) Review process
They still have railway engineer in charge at the IPCC
They still have their suction pumps into the tax payer topped up funding bins
They are still in bed with the Greens and the greeny NGO’s and still picking up their glossy dross and passing it off as scieence
Even as of yesterday some 2 bit university was promoting as science how we are going to be stressed out and loopy because of GW and higher temperatures, all backed by the one bit/agenda driven Climate Institute
Yep…saw that one…here it is:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
WTF?
That’s really start to push it isn’t it?
The scary part is that they must have received tax payer funding to do this report?
I wonder if we could get funding to write up a report that says it’s actually the ridiculous antics of the establishment re AGW and climate change and Carbon Tax and ETS that is affecting our mental health including their desire to fund studies like this one?
I seriously believe this money could be far better spent on far more helpful projects related to mental health.
Mental health is actually a serious problem in our society but the causes have so very little to do with Climate Change.
Quite agree Debbie
One major source of mental health problems is the appalling bad management by many companies big and small.
They employ human resource people to help hide their managerial incompetence who only succeed in making any problems worse.
Most HR people are totally out of their depth and because they have low competency skills themselves, and also are there to reflect the corporate culture …they just succeed in making tensions worse.
Many people leave organisations because of bad management, and the figures can be as high as 30-40%
Be very careful in accepting employment with any European companies..they are nothing but trouble piled on trouble.
O/T but see
“Climate Change Causes Mental Illness
Posted on August 29, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Alternate title: Bill McKibben explained”
at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/29/climate-change-causes-mental-illness/
‘As Britons return to work today after a soggy Bank Holiday weekend, official weather data reveals that average temperatures were significantly down on recent years.’
A couple of degrees to be precise.
Low cloud cover creates cool wet conditions and the CERN experiment gives us a strong base to destroy the AGW theory.
Do wank on El Gordo – do wank on
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
and LOL !! http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2_is_a_trace_gas.html (What a hoot for sceptic drongos – presence of sceptic neurones another example of small numbers that have disproportionate political impact )
Surprising isn’t it – after all the banging on, ranting and raving by faux sceptics, AGW science results haven’t changed and results stand. And you wonder why we say deniers.
Anyway – crack a tinnie and relax – Abbott will be in soon enough. Then there won’t be a health budget to whinge about.
CERN was replicating and trying to disprove Svensmark’s work of 1997 (circa) when he postulated that cosmic rays increased cloud formation.
This is what science is about.
Oh, and Little Lukey,
the juxtaposition of your two links are hilarious. The first one denies that GCR’s, a rather rare item compared to major atmospheric components, have a substantial affect on the climate.
The second link tries to use the fact that this very rare bird, GCR’s, having an affect on clouds shows that rare things like CO2 can have a substantial affect on climate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Do you have another spin on the report that, based on your links, you have no comprehension of what they actually reported??
Don’t you worry about the health budget comrade luke, the baby boomers will see to that.
The conservative coalition will sack the entire Klimatariat and then gradually re-employ them depending on their worth.
Well Kookers pity the trend is in the wrong direction
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What drongoism.
As for the health budget – you mean the one the baby boomers are now consuming. Peez orf.
Shaviv adds weight to the argument.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/nir-shaviv-cloud-is-clearing.html
And Briggs has a few words to say.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4303
What I find quite interesting is that Kirby actually SAID that they found out what they THOUGHT was causing clouds wasn’t and that what they have found so far with GCR’s still leaves them a few thunderstorms short on causality. Not sure whether he is being serious or just looking to keep his project funded.
Either way, I don’t think what we have seen so far is a victory for anyone. The only real shot is that he claims the modellers need to redo the models based on what they have shown DOESN’T happen!!! We deniers and sceptics have been saying that for years. Maybe it is time.
Oh, and Little Lukey, you still haven’t figured out that trends are fickle things. Here today, gone tomorrow, unless you can keep fudging the numbers!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
‘….trends are fickle things.’
Visually understandable and a truism… I like it.
Luke, the political game, et tu julia, will see Smith as PM before too long. The right are pushing him because he has no union baggage…lawyer type…political clean skin.
He will drop the CO2 tax and claw back ground lost, so we can continue our discussions on climate change without rancor.
Luke at September 1st, 2011 at 8:13 am
Ah, Luke, I’ve not yet seen what RC has invoked in their piece on the CLOUD experiment, but the first link I gave up top was obtained from their post about on Svensmark’s Uni of Aarhus results.
I find it hilarious that RC manages to accidentally prove with their own GISS graph exactly what they’re trying to disprove in the post where they use it.
El Gordo,
“Without rancour” ?!!!!
We’re always going to get rancour out of our Lukebaby. In the abuse and rancour stakes Jennifer allows him to get away with blue murder.
I sometimes wonder whether he’s teachers pet. :).
So what’s the fuss all about? I’m sitting looking at a photo of a particle that just barrelled through a Wilson Cloud Chamber leaving a trail of condensation behind it. Note that word..a trail. Not one nucleation event per particle but a whole TRAIL of them. A Danish experiment – about 2 yrs ago – to verify this ( already observed in 1910) phenomenon also confirmed that a single particle produced multiple nucleation events…in other words CGR’s act as ‘catalysts’ for nucleation. So the qualitative effect is confirmed, what we need now is the quantitative effect to be measured .
‘I sometimes wonder whether he’s teachers pet. :).’
Luke is a rarity (a left wing troll) and his contrarian views are useful in offering a counterpoint.
Back on topic, the quiet sun is showing signs of its effect. The Netherlands just had its wettest summer since 1906 and Denmark its second wettest on record. While in the UK and Ireland it has been unusually cool this summer.
It appears to verify the theory that a cool sun will produce more low cloud on planet earth and quickly lead to regional cooling.
Here is an on the spot observation of how regional cooling begins, the cool/wet summers which meant starvation in times of yore, but are just an inconvenience these days.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8733111/Rain-hail-and-yet-more-rain-The-British-Summer-That-Never-Was.html
Mass migration to Spain by disillusioned Brits, as the weather gets nasty over the coming decades, will be something the historians will sagely note.
El Gordo,
Come to think of it you’re right, Luke has become a rarity. No wonder Jennifer treasures him. A veritable treasure trove of trash.
Thanks for the British link. It was an amusing read.
The cooling sun…mmmm. I wonder how long it takes for the thermal inertia of the earth to be overcome (change).
I appreciate your scepticism Mack, for me it’s a cherry picking exercise.
Up until around 1200 AD the weather conditions in Europe were warm and dry, higher treelines and glacier retreat, but it gradually changed to a cool/moist climate with severe consequences for agricultural.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2011.png
Here’s a video on the CERN experiment.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1370582
From a Scientific Alliance article at Icecap:
‘Clearly, there is a lot more work to be done on this whole issue. But we should not forget that the first results of CLOUD are still at least consistent with the Svensmark hypothesis. The effect is much smaller than would be needed to have the impact he suggests, but the experiment has also so far failed to reproduce the nucleation rates necessary for cloud formation, with or without the impact of cosmic rays. Until this is done, the hypothesis certainly cannot be dismissed.
‘And, in contrast, we should not forget that the enhanced greenhouse effect has no direct supporting evidence, merely the apparent certainty that there is no other explanation for the pattern of temperature rise over the last century or so. Any ‘evidence’ put forward is either purely circumstantial or the output of computer models tuned to account for past changes. Since they have singularly failed to account for the temperature plateau of the last decade, confidence in them seems to be misplaced.
‘In these circumstances, rather than circling the wagons, it is the duty of all true scientists to maintain an open mind and not simply protect their own pet theories to the death. If only…’
As for the CERN experiment all I can say is any scientific knowledge, provided it is honest, is good knowledge. I don’t care what they find out about sulfuric acid and ammonia so long as it is NOT CO2!!! 🙂
With clouds they are only scratching the surface. The more you know the more you realise you don’t know, I would say. But at least this experiment at the same time as making the believers in the “just add CO2 = heat” theory look like somthing from a school-boy chemistry class , does emphasise the total rule of the sun in all its complexities in driving the climate.
El Gordo – “Luke is a rarity (a left wing troll) ” – don’t verbal me mate.
El Gordo – possibly better than being a faux sceptic harlot – mate you’ve uncrtically shagged every hypothesis put in your gaze. You’ve been on everything !
From Mack “making the believers in the “just add CO2 = heat” theory look like somthing from a school-boy chemistry class” – oh really – what sheer frigging stupidity as a sweeping science comment on a massive body of work.
And another gem “Any ‘evidence’ put forward is either purely circumstantial or the output of computer models tuned to account for past changes. ” what piffle
Here’s your temperature plateau drongos ! http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/learning-from-bastardis-mistakes/#more-4079
Yep…volcanic activity, a cool sun and double dip La Nina are to blame for temperatures leveling off, but any minute now solar activity will pick up and save political ratbags everywhere. In your dreams, Luke.
The noise overwhelms the AGW signal and if left to continue will destroy the global warming hypothesis.
Interesting info in the SMH about the time taken to replace Oz’s reduced co2 emissions to 2020 by China. Estimate is around 78 hours worth of China’s emissions.
I’ve no idea whether this is accurate or not but it would indeed be a very short time.
Of course this means that NZ’s saved emissions would be repaced in about six hours, what a sick joke.
But of course Luke and Gav believe this moronic nonsense and certainly reside down at the bottom of the garden playing with all the other fairies.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-question-is-what-earthly-difference-can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html#ixzz1WuyY7La6
Luke – Mr Tamino (to use his blog name) has a bad habit of always starting his graphs in 1975. I wish he’d use the full data set when he sounds off about such things since he makes himself look like a hypocrit, particularly when complaining about the picking of dataset starting points as in this post.
If you use the full dataset the picture is always different from what Mr Tamino wants to make it. For example the trendline on the full CET dataset is about 0.24 C/century as I recall (I’d have to go find my spreadsheet to check). Yet he has a trend of 0.18 C/decade because he has picked one end point at the bottom of the PDO/AMO related cycle and the other at the top of it. That alone is worth 0.27 C of the about 0.6 C anomaly he’s graphing. Net over a longer time base that all disappears because it is a cycle. Then the solar cycles for the last thirty years had been increasing in intensity until the most recently completed one was the strongest in something like 300 years. He mentions none of this.
You cannot ignore certain data which together explains 5/6ths of the temperature rise last century and expect to win an argument. You have to explain all the data.
El Gordo,
‘The noise overwhelms the AGW signal’
That’s an excellent way of describing the basic problem.
Um Luke?
‘As for the health budget – you mean the one the baby boomers are now consuming. Peez orf.’
You’re kidding aren’t you? Just have a little think about that one.
Who would you expect to be consuming the health budget?
X or Y generation?
I certainly hope not because they’re supposed to be young and relatively free of health issues aren’t they?
Also…isn’t socialised health insurance supposed to ensure that as people get older and start having health issues, they can access health care without killing themselves financially?
Also…I’m pretty sure that the baby boomers have contributed way more to the health budget than any other demographic.
That comment is rather disrespectful and dismissive of a highly influential demographic.
You may want to rethink that attitude or perhaps reword the comment?
Little Lukey,
Can you explain to me why the equator and surrounds aren’t boiled every day by that ~1300w/m2 that is incoming from the sun??
Could it just possibly be because there are GHG’s that actually absorb some of that incoming and prevent it from boiling the surface??
Naaaah, couldn’t be. You and RC and Tammie’s and Skeptical Science and the IPCC and… assure us that GHG’s HEAT the planet!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
More drongoism ” full CET dataset ” oh pullease – a datum point . Jeez !
” highly influential demographic.” says Debs – yes Debs – we’ve smoked it, shot up on it, fucked it, then consumed it, then become merchant bankers and banked it. Greed is good. Anyway Debs I wonder if modern medicine costs a fair bit?
Or Kookers Kat – could it be – hmmmm – the global circulation system – HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“You and RC and Tammie’s and Skeptical Science and the IPCC and… assure us that GHG’s HEAT the planet!!” No we don’t ! what a doofus
Hey Bruce – http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf – wot’s EOF numero uno ? Oh look a centennial trend ! You guys …….. !!
Lost it big time eh Luke – if you can’t carry an argument don’t join the discussion. Posting of web sites you obviously can’t interpret and do not understand does not consititue an argument. Neither does using insults and bad language if you have a solid argument use it if not find another web site to practice your swearing on.
From the conclusion in Luke’s link:
‘An important point is that the combination of these influences can cause regional ‘‘climate surprises’’ by enhancing or masking anthropogenic effects. Climate surprises are particularly likely when the two types of influence are in phase.
‘Thus, the strengthening winter NAO between the 1960s and the 1990s, which may itself have been partly anthropogenic, caused substantial winter warming in Europe in addition to the background anthropogenic warming.’
And here’s me thinking the science was settled. Climate surprises???
Little Lukey,
““You and RC and Tammie’s and Skeptical Science and the IPCC and… assure us that GHG’s HEAT the planet!!” No we don’t ! what a doofus”
Why do y’all worry so much about CO2 if it isn’t goint to HEAT the planet?? How do we get that 1.5-6C/century the IPCC drones on about if not by heating? What about that wonderful simple model that alledgedly tells us that the difference between GHG’s and no GHG’s are about +33c?? Why do I hear this tired old speculation that Venus is the hugest GreenHouse in the Solar System and heated the crust of Venus to ~450C?!?!?!
Please, I am ready for the new meme to replace Goreball Warming. Do edjumacate us won’t you??
Oh, and I won’t tell the others that you are no longer a believer, HONEST!!
El Gordo – you may have noticed EOF1 – climate 101 for drongos.
Try to keep up Broson.
Luke – I’ll have to digest the Parker et al 2007 paper before I can say a great deal, but I’ll note two things.
One: the total anomaly they have in Fig 1 is about 0.6-0.7 C in 160 years. That is 0.04 C/decade compared to Mr Tamino’s 0.18 C/decade.
Second: the inset to Figure 1 shows that most of the sharp temperature rise since 1970 is in land surface temperature departing from the sea surface temperature. We know what that is don’t we?
I never said there isn’t a long term trend. What I say is that in the 20th C about half can be explained by solar magnetic variation (solar cycle 23 was the most active for centuries), about one third can be explained by cyclical temperature changes that seem to be related to the PDO/ENSO/AMO cycles (this I’ll have to delve into in Parker et al – they have a lot of solid science in there), and one sixth due to CO2 rise as befits a climate sensitivity around 0.7 C/doubling.
All of which continues to say that the CO2 induced warming is not at all harmful, since we can’t put enough into the atmosphere to increase temperature by more than about 1 C or so.
Little Lukey,
those guys you link looking at Climate Variability or Global Circulation might be interested in what drives it:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201016173&Itemid=129
Correct me if I’m wrong, the Parker et al. paper came out in 2007 just at the start of the harsh European winters.
So where does that leave us?
The surprises will keep coming with a Dalton style minimum.
el gordo,
I am not scared of frying mate, you are gut wrenchingly , scarily , more worrying than Luke.
Because you are dealing with scary facts
And I am a bit bothered
This Island doesn’t handle cold too well ,historically
Oh for heavens sake El Gordo – and there haven’t been any harsh winters in the last 150 years. Pullease !
A right little cherry plucker you are.
So cold that http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm LOL !
Meanwhile something more interesting http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/odd-introduction-to-a-new-paper/#more-4126
Double LOL ! http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/dessler_shows_that_clouds_aren.php
Little Lukey,
apparently Dessler remembers ClimateGate and doesn’t want to use HadCrut products for his products. Doesn’t matter, the models still don’t match the climate. I love it when they always match them to temp and energy balance when the precip is literally OTHER worldly. Could you do us a favor and ask them what planet they are trying to match on their precip projections??
Of course, they still don’t match temp OR energy balance!!
So Little Lukey, do you prefer your Crow from Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/
Gotta a certain flair with the title: “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study”
or from Steve McIntyre:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/06/the-stone-in-trenberths-shoe/
I’m just an ignoramus so you will have to read them for yourself.
Luke – the first post in this thread I gave links to two graphs. You obviously don’t look at links anyone else provides do you? They show that when the Sun is at minimum, which happens each 9-13 years, cloudiness peaks. Or don’t you believe GISS nowadays?
I have not read Dr Dessler’s paper yet, though I have read Spencer & Braswell 2011. However you don’t need someone to write words to explain what you can see with your own eyes. GISS’s cloudiness data clearly follows the solar magnetic cycle. You do use your eyes sometimes Luke?
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions i recall.
I really don’t know clouds at all.
When, after two or three decades of trying, the hockey team having spent billions of taxpayer funds are no further ahead than Joni Mitchell was, they should give up.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/06/the-stone-in-trenberths-shoe/
Triple LOL!!!
Dessler the desperate.
I see the Ban Ki-Moon idiot has made a stupid barking mad speech in Sydney this morning.
http://my.news.yahoo.com/un-chief-calls-urgent-action-climate-change-031046290.html
Look at em’ froth – ROFL !
Spencer is a flake – from the guys who couldn’t even drift correct their own data. Pullease – it’s just simply desperate guys. As well as trash.
Seems the Swedes need their ice breaker returned at once because they’re having trouble with the increase in ice.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/07/frozen-global-warming-research/#more-46739
Neville,
D’ya think BK-M could possibly have a conflict of interest? Like needing to boost the flagging cred of a dead authority?
He sounds a bit like Our Luke with about as much sense:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Luke, when Spencer and his mate were pulled up on that problem with the data, they accepted the error as scientists with integrity do.
Another bitter winter in Europe and North America will see me cherry picking with glee.
“Spencer is a flake –”
Well, no one’s perfect save thee and me and even thee…….
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/09/new-santer-et-al-paper-totally-discredited-santer-ignores-prior-pivotal-peer-reviewed-research.html
Not about clouds I know, but more AGW stupid:
“Land. As American humorist and philosopher Will Rogers observed, “They ain’t making any more of it.” Wind turbine installations impact vast amounts of land, far more than traditional power plants.
The Chokecherry-Sierra Madre project will blanket some 320,000 acres of sage grouse habitat and BLM land in Wyoming with 1,000 monstrous 3-MW turbines, to generate zero to 3,000 MW of intermittent power. That’s eight times the size of Washington, DC, to get an average annual output one-fourth of what Palo Verde generates 90 percent of the time. But C-SM has already received preliminary approval from BLM.”
This story is about a dirty cloud picked up by HIPPO, from China with love.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5291/first-global-portrait-greenhouse-gases-emerges-pole-pole-flights
Global Ocean Heat Content (GOHC) has flattened.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2i7qn9y.jpg
BoM still talks POAMA while the CFS goes bananas.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/nino34SSTMonE120.gif
There’s a bit for everyone in the latest Catalyst report on CAGW, but I don’t think Ove is a good choice for the alarmist cause.
His track record is about as good as silly Timmy Flannery.
I’d just repeat again that co2 is not pollution and there is nothing we can do to reduce co2 emissions into the future, just ask China, India etc etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3313559.htm
Drought special for Our Luke.
From Ecotretas:
“UN is attributing the Horn of Africa crisis to climate change…
The problem? IPCC considered it the place in Africa where rainfall would increase the most!
How did international organizations react? They were not prepared for several years without rainfall.
Now, people are dying in the tens of thousands. Probably hundreds of thousands in the next months.
Welcome to HornGate”
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/09/horngate.html
Neville,
I see that our bed-wetter-in-chief Ove H-G of UQ just got another handsome grant to come up with his usual wrong conclusions about coral.
Imagine if he simply stated the truth and said that if the climate warms, the coral will slowly migrate polewards as it has always done, how much funding he would get?
What does it take for a responsible govt to do a due diligence on these catastrophist scientists and show them up for the charlattans and carpet-baggers they are?
I guess I answered my own question: [a responsible govt]
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=23251
Do you get the feeling Ove and his ilk can smell the end of the bull market on AGW grants and they’re going for broke?
These taxpayer-funded Ponzi Schemes have to come to an end sometime.
But getting back to clouds:
Well, everyone now knows why Dessler avoided the HadCRUT data. His refutation of the Spencer study was literally a sham.
“Having exactly replicated Dessler’s regression results and Figure 2a, I’ve repeated the exercise with CERES clear sky in combination with CERES all sky, and with the widely used HadCRUT3 series and got surprising results…The supposed relationship between CLD forcing and temperature is reversed: the slope is -0.96 w/m2/K rather than 0.54 (and with somewhat higher though still low significance).”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/09/the-dessler-2010-travesty-its-now-obvious-why-he-avoided-using-hadcrut-data-the-gold-standard.html
Hurricane Katia is heading towards Britain and so far has nothing to do with AGW.
‘Its forecast track then takes it east-northeast or north-eastwards, accelerating as it meets mid-latitude weather systems that will hurry it towards the British Isles and the Faroe Islands early next week.
‘Even if the hurricane does change course it is predicted that there will be heavy rain throughout Britain.
‘The last hurricane to hit the UK was Hurricane Charley which struck at the end of August 1986.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035394/Hurricane-Katia-hit-parts-Britain-Tuesday.html#ixzz1XRhEZUcw
John Cook picks up the Eureka Award.
http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/EEF99C60-76BC-11E0-A87E005056B06558?DISPLAYENTRY=true
It’s a disgrace!
John Cook would do well to read a bit of Walter Starck:
“While Australia’s per capita emissions are high, the population is relatively sparse and total emissions are less than the natural uptake from Australia’s land/sea area. In the global GHG budget Australia is a net sink, not a source. Australia’s international obligation to reduce emissions is a half-baked argument concocted for political purposes. A better case could be made that we should be receiving carbon credits for overseas emissions absorbed here.”
So could Ove H-G:
“The strong bleaching events claimed to be due to climate change have all been the result of this kind of El Niño associated calms which have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 or global warming. Scars from numerous past bleaching events can be seen in the skeletons of corals over the past thousand years and also in fossil corals from millions of years ago.
The claim that recent bleaching events are due to AGW is simply untrue and can only be either ignorance by the experts if they really don’t know any better or deliberate misinformation if they do.”
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/09/neglected-truths-of-climate-change
Walter Stark is of course absolutely correct. Australia IS a net sink, and even more so if the territorial waters are included.
If the Nation State Co2 emmissions were accounted for with a variable that included the area of the land/sea that nation state is responsible for, then Australias impact is absolutely miniscule, and our ranking is near the bottom.
Guess which countries come out near the top …pissant European countries, that are high emmitters with huge populations and next to bugger all ability to sink it away within their own borders, as they should. Guess where the pressure to only use per capita came from…..you geussed it the europeans in league with shonky IPCC
Ranking on the sole basis of straight per capita emmissions is a fraud..and the GW academics and the various greeny NGO’s know it.
It is also true that a better case can be made for receiving carbon credits for other peoples emmissions absorbed here. But given the intellectual and policy standards in Canberra and academia generally, that wouldnt be part of the game would it…..no they are that stupid that they are actually making provisons for us to BUY credits.
Garnaut and Gillard/Combet/Flannery/Steffen et al should be ashamed of themselves.
MfT, I wonder if I can claim carbon credits for this: I’ve got half a dozen male scrub turkeys raking up loose organic matter in the undergrowth which they mix with soil to make their incubating mound. It only gets used for one season as the decaying OM only generates heat for the first few months but the mound stays around for yonks.
If they dont qualify for CCs, I should bag them and sell the beaut potting mix.
Catastrophist lefties try to wedge Rick Perry on AGW:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/09/09/is-gov-perry-anti-science/
Starck’s comment is pure sceptic drongoism. Threshold intelligence test if you don’t know why. Honestly ….
But nevertheless much more realistic than the predictable Lukism.
Not prepared to offer a f’rinstance, I see.
Luke,
At least you are not doing a Sir Robin.
But you are still acting the fool.
That’s Luke in the doorway:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/josh_spencer_teaching_dessler.jpg
How many AGW deniers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, because there is no proof that the lightbulb needs to be changed. It might be a power cut, or a wiring fault, and in any case those new commie low energy lightbulbs contain mercury and osmium and kryptonium and they cost a lot and what about the jobs in the tungsten filament industry and they are really expensive and the old ones warm up the room and anyway we should be free to waste our money if we want to and so on ad infinitum.
Why did the climate change denier cross the road?
Because he thought he could get across before the car got to him and anyway he didn’t hear it coming and there aren’t many cars on that road normally, and anyway he had private health insurance.
“How many AGW deniers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, because there is no proof that the lightbulb needs to be changed.”
Well you finally got something right.
Stick with us kid, you’ll eventually get there!
Gee I never ever understood that the climate was as simple to understand as changing a light globe or crossing the road, silly me.
Funny but climate history tells us that we can have periods of drought or flooding rains but we don’t dare question an increase of 0.7c over the last 100+ years although the suns been fairly active during much of that period.
Of course Luke knows it just has to be extra co2 that’s causing (?) all our problems, not enso, or PDO or ocean variations or perhaps an increase/decrease in cloud cover by say 1% over that period of time. No it definitely has to be only co2 increases that’s the problem, nothing else.
It’s as easy to understand as changing a light globe or just crossing the road. You see the weather/climate isn’t hard to understand at all, just more co2 emissions covers everthing.
Spot on SD…typical Lukism drongoism
Anyone with half brain woud obviously test to see it was indeed a power cut ….before getting up a 12′ ladder.
Says a lot about the logical thinking abilities of the village idiot and the alarmanistas he represents.
Guufffawwwwww..what a hoot
…of course the climate denier did use his other faculties to SEE that there was in fact no car coming and thereby avoided any drama, or any personal harm to himself and others…unlike Flannery et al
He and his idiot mates would be so concerned about the probability of a catastrophe, that a car may come along and hit the dopes, that everyone had to spend a fortune to build a bridge so they could walk over even when the road was closed.
A bit like the billions we have spent on desal plants all over the place bases upon his (and his cronies) incompetent and decidely shonky predictions.
This one should be an interesting read for everyone.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/09/neglected-truths-of-climate-change
It is a long piece…I have pasted all the headings and quoted from a couple of sections.
Unprecedented Warming
The Dire Threat
‘The idea that a few degrees of warming will somehow wreak havoc on the environment arises from the postmodern mythology of nature as fragile and existing in a delicate state of balance which is vulnerable to collapse at the slightest disturbance. If caused by humans, any detectable effect is described as an impact. (If the words in italics seem familiar in this context it is because you will surely have heard and seen them used many times before. They are all favourites of the eco-salvationists.)
This fairy tale view of nature has found strong appeal with the large population of urban non-producers which our increasing prosperity has spawned. Environmentalism offers them a satisfying sense of righteousness and absolves any need of gratitude for the effort from others their way of life demands or guilt about the massive impact it imposes on nature. In reality, the delicate fragile myth bears little relation to the tough, hard, messy and often tragic struggle which is life in nature. This is also the reality with which primary producers must cope in order for the urban cocoon to exist. Without a constant flow of energy, food and water the condition of life in the huge modern urban areas would become desperate within a few days; and ironically, it is where the naïve demands of climate alarmists would quickly lead if fully implemented.’
Rising Sea Levels
Species Extinctions
Dying Reefs
Methane from Livestock
Australian Per Capita Emissions
Alternative Energy
Good News is Unwelcome
Climate Experts
Climategate Exonerated
Peer Review
‘Pre-publication peer review by scientific journals is not, and has never been, a guarantee of quality. It is primarily an editorial aid. Journal editors simply do not have the expertise necessary to make informed judgements over the full spectrum of highly technical research they publish. A bit of knowledgeable advice is essential. ‘
Funding Bias
The Quality of Climate Science
‘Although the impeccable quality of scientific research supporting the claims of dangerous man-made climate change has been loudly proclaimed, critical examination of key research has repeatedly found it to be at best inconclusive; and, in a number of important instances, it has been found to be misleading or even false. Unfortunately, the myriad technical details involved in all this quickly lead to confusion. ‘
Getting Priorities Right
‘Now is the very worst of times to divert ourselves into a vastly expensive, quixotic, tilt at windmills under the delusion we are preventing climate change. Alternative energy must surely come anyway, but can happen only if and when it is possible, practical and affordable. Trying to force the premature adoption of costly inadequate energy technology at a time of great socio-economic stress can only lead to a self-inflicted disaster. ‘
More moronic denialism. You guys eh ….
Debbie what utter tosh – Quadrant – what a cesspit of extreme right waffle. Try thinking. I know it’s hard. You know what’s a good indication of rubbish Debs – anything written by a sceptic. Inevitably flawed crap.
Gee Luke,
What an amazing, sweeping and completely unsubstantiated statement…or maybe ‘rant’.
Jennifer is among many well respected people who write for Quadrant. She actually has a reasonably current piece there at the moment…it’s the same one she posted here from her speech at the convoy.
I noticed from your comments at that post that it didn’t upset you greatly?
I am also led to understand that many highly intelligent people who are actually very good at thinking about all sorts of topics, are regular readers of Quadrant. That’s why there are much longer pieces there than one would find in the MSM…. it caters to a different audience.
Words and phrases like “moronic denialism”…”utter tosh’…’cesspit of extreme right waffle’….’Inevitably flawed crap’, actually explains more about the way you think than the way I think.
If you wish to sustantiate your claims I am more than happy to discuss them with you.
I posted because I thought it would be an ‘interesting read’….I even said that.
That obviously wasn’t the case for you….I apologise it upset you so much… that wasn’t why I posted it 🙂
Just ignore silly Lukey because if he really believes we can change the climate some how to our advantage by reducing our emissions by 5% or even 100% then he is best left in his comfy, insular funny farm.
Anyone who can understand simple maths knows we cannot make a jot of difference to the temp or climate at all.
So who’s the denier or dummy then, we who can accurately plot the inevitable increase in global co2 emissions to at least 2035, or the silly delusional fools who cling to their mad delusional cult of CAGW.
In a casual sort of way I have been wandering around watermelon blogs in search of a replacement for our resident troll.
Dropped into Lavatus Prodeo on topic, along with a couple of others, before too long Brian comes out with a warning.
‘Notice to denialati. Look at the notice above the comments box. This is our lounge room. We will decide who comes here and the circumstances… ‘
The intolerance is vexing.
‘Notice to denialati. Look at the notice above the comments box. This is our lounge room. We will decide who comes here and the circumstances… ‘
Yes EG, a pompous lot who take themselves very seriously. They have to because no one else does.
I tried to post Josh’s cartoon of Spencer and Dessler there to inject a little humour but they weren’t having any of that sort of denialist rubbish.
Best to leave them to their incestuous, humourless fate.
It seems the best approach, spangles.
On topic, an interesting story by Nigel Calder on the Forbush connection.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/do-clouds-disappear-4/
A great post by Bill Illis at WUWT on what clouds really do and what a huge effect they really have on the energy budget.
It strikes a chord with what the average person is really aware of:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/bill-illis-clouds-account-for-most-of-the-variability-in-net-radiation-at-the-top-of-the-atmosphere/#more-46956
EG,
The beauty of that paper on Forbush decreases is that it is based on simple obs and is very believable. I notice that effect on a daily basis just by watching the sky cloudiness and observing my max/min thermometer.
All I need now is a GCM detector…
EG, here’s a good site for LarvProd to get their teeth into. I suggested Brian post it for scientific consensus referral but I may get “moderated”.☺
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/09/01/fa-launches-%E2%80%98let%E2%80%99s-kick-climate-change-denial-out-of-football%E2%80%99-campaign/
Little Lukey,
“Why did the climate change denier cross the road?”
He couldn’t, the CAGW freaks REMOVED the road to protect the environment meaning that us deniers must now burn all the trees and the output from the IPCC to keep warm as the world cools. Gee, I wish there was something to eat while I burn the trees!!
Luke,
Everytime you choose to use the word, “denier”, you put yourself in the same category as someone talking about how to cure the “Aboriginal Problem” back in the days when Australia was involved with eugenics,
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0403/Eugenics_in_Australia.htm
or some nasty racist from the Southern USAA talking about those uppity lazy ni**ers.
Notice that eugenics in Australia, just like everywhere else it was promoted, was heavily favored by the intellectuals and progressives of the day. To oppose eugenics was to oppose progress as defined by the self-declared best minds of the day.
But do keep up the good work, Luke, You help create skeptics with every post you spew.
BTW, asking why someone crossed the road implies they got to the other side of the road safely. Think about it.
spangles…you left some good comments at LP, you’re a much better performer than me in a tight situation.
As a matter of interest I spend quite some time at Gutter Trash and Cafe Whispers to convince them that climate change is natural and we don’t need a CO2 tax.
I occasionally suffer from climate change fatigue, but feel I have a responsibility to say something.
Hunter – into eugenics. What a wack job. Check for reds under the bed too mate. Isn’t it interesting to go through the dingbat causes in the denialist toolkit. What a tosser you are. But keep going – have some more rope.
Alan Kohler – Business Spectator …
‘No wonder business confidence has collapsed. While the US and Europe apparently grind towards a new financial crisis and recession, Australia’s politicians busy themselves with a fraudulent debate about climate change.’
I think Alan is one of us?
Anybody who can really think has to know this carbon tax is a massive negative economic reform…so its know wonder he is scathing.even combet this morning avoided the question of if he was a”believer”…..and even “our” luke knows its bullshit.
The science is irrelevant, the politics is deadly……