Sunny and Warm Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/#more-45793 In an important first step, it has now been shown that global cosmic rays support the growth of nuclei that cause cloud formation. Obviously, much more experimentation needs to be done in this field to prove the causation link, but at least Svensmark's theory has passed a first step. I only wish AGW theory proponents could go through the rigorous scientific method like Svensmark is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 http://wattsupwithth...nge/#more-45793 In an important first step, it has now been shown that global cosmic rays support the growth of nuclei that cause cloud formation. Obviously, much more experimentation needs to be done in this field to prove the causation link, but at least Svensmark's theory has passed a first step. I only wish AGW theory proponents could go through the rigorous scientific method like Svensmark is. Do geologists follow the scientific method? How about those studying radiative transfer? Thermodynamics? Astronomy? Spectroscopy? Paleoclimatology? Oceanography? Glaciology? Atmospheric scientists? These are the kinds of disciplines which are called upon in the building of AGW theory. These are the fields of study which make up climatology. This idea that the scientific method is not being followed is ridiculous, although a great skeptic talking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Do geologists follow the scientific method? How about those studying radiative transfer? Thermodynamics? Astronomy? Spectroscopy? Paleoclimatology? Oceanography? Glaciology? Atmospheric scientists? These are the kinds of disciplines which are called upon in the building of AGW theory. These are the fields of study which make up climatology. This idea that the scientific method is not being followed is ridiculous, although a great skeptic talking point. They are following the scientific method......it's just the one little aspect of "conclusions drawn" being done way too prematurely....I think the climotologist are doing a great job...........at collecting data/obeservations.....they just need to do that quite a bit longer before such dramatic conclusions are drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Your summary of the research is egregiously incorrect. The lead researcher specifically said that the particles being created are too small to be cloud nuclei and that the experiment says nothing about any climate effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 If I read it right, then it seems to me that it has far more implications for cooling due to excessive cloud growth due to pollutants and volcanic activity than anything GCR related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Your summary of the research is egregiously incorrect. The lead researcher specifically said that the particles being created are too small to be cloud nuclei and that the experiment says nothing about any climate effect. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Huh? Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 What is the point of this? Let's say cosmic rays modulate cloud amount. We have another case of natural variability. How is this supposed to imply a lack of greenhouse warming? Are the physics of greenhouse warming altered by this potential factor? People think AGW theory was developed to explain a warming trend over the past 40 years. It was not. It has been suspected and known for over 100 years that the addition of CO2 would cause a global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate" Sure, for CR effect. Not ANY climate affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 What is the point of this? Let's say cosmic rays modulate cloud amount. We have another case of natural variability. How is this supposed to imply a lack of greenhouse warming? Are the physics of greenhouse warming altered by this potential factor? People think AGW theory was developed to explain a warming trend over the past 40 years. It was not. It has been suspected and known for over 100 years that the addition of CO2 would cause a global warming. What's the point of this?? For Christ's sake....if you are so concerned with the potential catastrophic effects for the hypothesized AGW, don't you want to know if there are some potential feedbacks that might mitigate AGW to some degree??? Do you only want research that supports your doom and gloom hypothesis? So again....what's the point you ask?????? Science in it's most objective form....this post of yours is the most subjective thing I've heard come from you....horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 What's the point of this?? For Christ's sake....if you are so concerned with the potential catastrophic effects for the hypothesized AGW, don't you want to know if there are some potential feedbacks that might mitigate AGW to some degree??? Do you only want research that supports your doom and gloom hypothesis? So again....what's the point you ask?????? Science in it's most objective form....this post of yours is the most subjective thing I've heard come from you....horrible. This is not a feedback process. It would be a direct forcing instigated by changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar magnetic variability. Global cloud amount would have to be shown to change in response to measured cosmic ray flux. The argument here is that most of the warming will turn out to have been caused by this mechanism and not by our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. My point is, this research is designed to demonstrate that fossil fuel burning is not the cause of our measured warming trend. If in fact cosmic rays are modulating cloud amount, this would work in concert with greenhouse warming rather than replacing it. This in no way affects the expectation that CO2 warms the Earth by the amounts we have discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Sure, for CR effect. Not ANY climate affect. the study is on cosmic rays. this study has absolutely nothing to do with climate change at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkhorn Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 For those who are interested, here is Kirkby himself describing what the experiment does, and what it means and doesn't mean: Those who are AGW skeptics probably will want to stop getting on the GCR bandwagon due to Kirkby saying that the research is 5 to 10 years away from actually being at all conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.