Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Old 08-23-11, 02:39 PM
  #176  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
The whole matter is a red herring. The alarmists started talking about a consensus and saying "the science is settled" up to at least a decade ago and they've been repeating the mantra ever since no matter what contrary evidence surfaces. It has worked for the most part because compliant politicians and journalists go along with it.
Man I hate that point you made as it goes against every field of science in the world outside of quackery. A consensus is not a red-herring as it is one of the most basic principals of research. Contrary evidence does not shift a paradigm alone... you need more evidence on your side then the other guys have. Then that evidence needs to pass wide-spread scrutiny to eventually take over as being the consensus.
Old 08-23-11, 02:54 PM
  #177  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Man I hate that point you made as it goes against every field of science in the world outside of quackery. A consensus is not a red-herring as it is one of the most basic principals of research. Contrary evidence does not shift a paradigm alone... you need more evidence on your side then the other guys have. Then that evidence needs to pass wide-spread scrutiny to eventually take over as being the consensus.
If there were a consensus, which there isn't. They've never established a paradigm, they've just made claims. Many of these claims are shown to be false or questionable all the time. There's an illusion which is held up by governments and journalists. I've yet to hear your answers about the computer models, the missing hotspot, the criticisms of the Hockey Stick etc. I think there is much more evidence against CAGW than for it. Thousands of scientists agree with that.

Find me anything like the number of actual scientific dissenters in evolution, relativity or quantum physics (there are different interpretations but hardly any credentialed physicist disputes quantum physics itself).
Old 08-23-11, 02:58 PM
  #178  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
The funding thing is ridiculous. Wiki is controlled by alarmists who wipe clean anything posted that questions the "consensus." It's been going on for years and is well known.


Old 08-23-11, 03:03 PM
  #179  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
First off, much more corporate money has gone to the alarmists than to the skeptics (as I said above and has been shown myriad times in these threads). Even Exxon. GE is notorious. See the green weeks every year on NBC and all its cable channels. These companies want to be thought of as "green."

Second, I think you can see that virtually every alarmist website from the odious such as DeSmog Blog on up to the "science" site RealClimate are backed by leftist groups and often the trail does lead to, dare I say it, George Soros. Those who believe in CAGW are overwhelmingly liberal as has been shown by many polls. Are alarmist climate scientists likely to be different?

And there is the funding. The US, many other countries, the UN and environmental groups have been funding alarmists for decades.

It seems to me you posed this question years ago and I answered it. It could have been someone else. I've answered this more than once before.
Back then you pretty much stated it was a leftist plot to destroy capitalism. () I was just wondering if the story has changed. The political angle of the skeptics is obvious.
Old 08-23-11, 03:40 PM
  #180  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...18/370719.aspx

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-of-wikipedia/

Connolley was finally suspended for abusing his powers and privileges and I'm not sure what his present status is. But he has lots of friends. But go ahead and scoff.
Old 08-23-11, 03:42 PM
  #181  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Back then you pretty much stated it was a leftist plot to destroy capitalism. () I was just wondering if the story has changed. The political angle of the skeptics is obvious.
Sorry, I don't remember it that way. I remember showing how many companies could make lots of money off of cap and trade.

Do you really think big companies give more support to skeptics than alarmists?
Old 08-23-11, 04:23 PM
  #182  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Man I hate that point you made as it goes against every field of science in the world outside of quackery. A consensus is not a red-herring as it is one of the most basic principals of research. Contrary evidence does not shift a paradigm alone... you need more evidence on your side then the other guys have. Then that evidence needs to pass wide-spread scrutiny to eventually take over as being the consensus.

Setting aside (for a moment) the fact that we can't define what a consensus is and the evidence that you interpret as pointing to a consensus of experts in this subject area...even when a scientific consensus has been reached, every so often in history, we see examples of where a consensus of "experts" is claimed and yet something has gone very very awry (see Lysenkosim for a glorious example of this). Typically, some sort of politics and more importantly financial gain or a power grab is involved when this happens. More than anything, this is what has me interested in CAGW at this point.

Regardless of how this debate turns out, as the science is far from settled here, I truly believe, based on everything I have seen and read, that this will go down in history as one of those times. There have just been far too many instances of scientists acting in very unscientific ways. This happens on both sides of any scientific debate when careers, reputations, and money are at stake. However, it is clear to me that one side of this debate has been far, far, more guilty of this behavior. And not just from the fringe scientists, but from what is supposedly the "top" of the field. History will not look kindly on many of these scientists as good science always trumps bad science in the end (even if it takes awhile sometimes). Every scientist is a skeptic. The second they stop being one, they stop being a scientist.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

-Richard Feynman
Old 08-23-11, 04:48 PM
  #183  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Setting aside (for a moment) the fact that we can't define what a consensus is and the evidence that you interpret as pointing to a consensus of experts in this subject area...even when a scientific consensus has been reached, every so often in history, we see examples of where a consensus of "experts" is claimed and yet something has gone very very awry (see Lysenkosim for a glorious example of this). Typically, some sort of politics and more importantly financial gain or a power grab is involved when this happens. More than anything, this is what has me interested in CAGW at this point.

Regardless of how this debate turns out, as the science is far from settled here, I truly believe, based on everything I have seen and read, that this will go down in history as one of those times. There have just been far too many instances of scientists acting in very unscientific ways. This happens on both sides of any scientific debate when careers, reputations, and money are at stake. However, it is clear to me that one side of this debate has been far, far, more guilty of this behavior. And not just from the fringe scientists, but from what is supposedly the "top" of the field. History will not look kindly on many of these scientists as good science always trumps bad science in the end (even if it takes awhile sometimes). Every scientist is a skeptic. The second they stop being one, they stop being a scientist.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

-Richard Feynman
The best examples I can think of for a "consensus" being overturned are plate tectonics and a bacterium causing ulcers. Lysenkoism really only took hold in the Soviet Union. And that was certainly political. Gulag political.
Old 08-23-11, 06:29 PM
  #184  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
If there were a consensus, which there isn't. They've never established a paradigm, they've just made claims. Many of these claims are shown to be false or questionable all the time. There's an illusion which is held up by governments and journalists. I've yet to hear your answers about the computer models, the missing hotspot, the criticisms of the Hockey Stick etc. I think there is much more evidence against CAGW than for it. Thousands of scientists agree with that.

Find me anything like the number of actual scientific dissenters in evolution, relativity or quantum physics (there are different interpretations but hardly any credentialed physicist disputes quantum physics itself).
That is a bit like poisoning the well isn't it? And if having many claims be wrong is proof of no underling theory, then the skeptical side would also be rubbish as a lot of the research I've seen also doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for governments and journalists... have you not seen FOX News? How about the feeding frenzy that happens when a major Republican claims they believe in global warming?

I think a close comparison would be chiropractic medicine (not perfect as I think climate skeptic science is pretty far above it). It has it's share of mainstream support, funding, followers, studies, research foundations and doctors. There are hospitals where doctors are trained to offers chiropractic medicine as a supplement to traditional medicine. There are highly respected real doctors who insist that the science of chiropractic is real and that there is a conspiracy that biased western medicine is in the pocket of "big pharma" which is refusing to acknowledge the thousands of experts and hundreds of thousands of testimonials. Even with all that, chiropractic medicine is still basically bullshit.

I've stayed away from the hockey-stick debate, and others you mentioned, because it was already made here and likely unopposed. For me to present evidence contrary to that here I'd being having an uphill battle on a topic I'm not that well versed in. At least examining new studies and new evidence I have a better shot at seeing the expressed premise (as opposed to whatever the debate morphed to) and at looking at evidence one day at a time (as opposed to all the back-and-forth that happened).
Old 08-23-11, 06:50 PM
  #185  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
That is a bit like poisoning the well isn't it? And if having many claims be wrong is proof of no underling theory, then the skeptical side would also be rubbish as a lot of the research I've seen also doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for governments and journalists... have you not seen FOX News? How about the feeding frenzy that happens when a major Republican claims they believe in global warming?

I think a close comparison would be chiropractic medicine (not perfect as I think climate skeptic science is pretty far above it). It has it's share of mainstream support, funding, followers, studies, research foundations and doctors. There are hospitals where doctors are trained to offers chiropractic medicine as a supplement to traditional medicine. There are highly respected real doctors who insist that the science of chiropractic is real and that there is a conspiracy that biased western medicine is in the pocket of "big pharma" which is refusing to acknowledge the thousands of experts and hundreds of thousands of testimonials. Even with all that, chiropractic medicine is still basically bullshit.

I've stayed away from the hockey-stick debate, and others you mentioned, because it was already made here and likely unopposed. For me to present evidence contrary to that here I'd being having an uphill battle on a topic I'm not that well versed in. At least examining new studies and new evidence I have a better shot at seeing the expressed premise (as opposed to whatever the debate morphed to) and at looking at evidence one day at a time (as opposed to all the back-and-forth that happened).
I can understand not wanting to sift through all the back and forth (god knows I've wasted enough time on reading about this topic!). Taking new studies and judging their worth is a great way to see where the science is heading. However, ignoring where the debate has been will leave you with some rather big holes. One of those being the myriad of reasons why so many people bristle when they here about the "consensus". It also leads to quick, dismissive pictures (not by you) of people wearing tin foil hats when someone mentions the fact that Wikipedia has been a very untrustworthy source for this topic.

There are two types of people who have problems with CAGW (generally speaking), those that review the science and the history of this debate and conclude that it isn't adding up the way the alarmists would have you believe, and those who are idealogically driven to oppose it without much of an understanding of the science or the history of the debate. I think you'll find more of the former in these threads than the latter. In fact, based upon your posts, you would probably fit right in here with the opinions on things like chiropractics, vaccines, acupuncture, etc.
Old 08-23-11, 07:25 PM
  #186  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
None of those lists impress me. You are assuming that all or virtually all of the members of those groups endorse the "consensus." You use the example of the American Meteorological Society. From this post about myths:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...l#post10048640


In fact, meteorology and geology are known for having a high degree of dissenters. To somewhat oversimplify, with the former it's thought it has a lot to do with their familiarity with computer models and with the latter it's thought to be because they take an eons eye view of things.

This is true about many of these groups. The leadership does not reflect the membership. Some groups have had great dissension within their ranks such as the American Physical Society.

As always, these threads are full of criticism of the surveys you cite.

Of course there is the Oregon Petition Project wherein 31,000 American scientists, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs agreed with a statement that disputes CAGW. The alarmists have attacked the Project because alarmists pranksters sent in a few phony names such as (Spice Girl) Geri Halliwell and the name Perry Mason showed up. The Project, which verifies the signatories, found Geri and other illegitimate names and deleted them and Perry Mason is a real chemist from Texas. Critics have not been able to prove any other name is phony.

http://www.petitionproject.org/


The threads also contain criticism of the work of people such as Oreskes and Anderegg that come up with lopsided numbers of papers and supporters of the "consensus." Such work has been showed to be highly flawed.

I'm sorry I can't repeat everything I (and others) have posted over the years. You might want to wade through the nearly 9,000 posts (not counting those before I started these threads). I also suggest you read some skeptical blogs. Tell me which ones seem more open and honest. Which ones link to blogs on the other side and which ones don't? Which ones allow the other side to comment in a much more open way? Ask yourself why RealClimate will not let many skeptical comments through but ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat are free and open. Which scientists are very open with all their background material? Which ones hide their work and resist any and all attempts to reveal it? Have you ever seen scientists complaining that Lindzen or Spencer or Douglass or Christy or Landsea or any other skeptics are hiding their dataor methods? It happens with alarmists quite often (Mann, P. Jones, many others on The Team and CRU, just to name a few). Are Christy and Spencer manipulating the UAH temperature record like Hansen is manipulating the NASA/GISS record?

I could go on and on. But a nearly 9,000 post history is involved.

You can go right on believing that there is this great overwhelming consensus if you want.

Finally, you can dismiss the report on 1,000 dissenting scientists as a drop in the bucket. Clearly, it's not all the scientists who have dissented. It's those who have done definitive work in the field and/or have made definitive public statements. To me it's pretty significant given the "handful" of "cranks" out on the fringe statements about the numbers of dissenters you regularly hear from the CAGW crowd.
In 2005, Scientific American reported:

“Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.


That doesn't sound too good.

Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

That doesn't sound too good either.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...rdID=s04201998

There are tons of other criticism on that petition, but I avoid them just because the deceit used in that case was ugly.
Old 08-23-11, 09:59 PM
  #187  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Yeah, Scientific American. It's been in the CAGW tank for years. It did the hit piece on Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist) which included Paul Ehrlich buddies Stephen Schneider and Obama Science Czar John Holdren. And then when he answered it on his website (SA refused to give him any more than a little space if they offered him any at all - can't quite remember), SA threatened to sue him because he reproduced the SA articles and answered them point by point. He took off what SA said and just left his responses. But the whole thing is still available here:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/...borgAnswer.pdf

I had forgotten the silly attack about the petition being formatted like the PNAS. The originator of the Project, Arthur Robinson (chemist), worked for many years with Linus Pauling (they split when Robinson rejected Pauling's Vitamin C claims) and had a number of papers published in PNAS himself. He respected the journal and had no intention of deceiving people into thinking it was a PNAS project. There is nothing in the mailing that says anything of the sort. Here is Dr Robinson responding to a critic:

http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1834.htm

Art Robinson Reponds to Petition Slander
From Art Robinson to Enviro Warmer Academic

I have read an email exchange in which you are engaged. Your statements include several like those quoted below. These statements and their implications are false - and I suspect that you know that they are false.
"Again, read my email before making such spurrious [misspelled in your text] claims. In my first email to you I cited several studies that found a large fraction of the names were fake, or were of people with no scientific background, or who did not choose to sign the petition."

"since after all, that's what the authors of the Oregon Petition were trying to make themselves look like" [PNAS]
Only one false name has ever appeared on the petition. It was put there by Ozone Action (now Greenpeace USA) and removed immediately thereafter.

Every listed signer has a university degree in science. The posted listing gives their highest degrees. (MDs were listed only if their underlying degrees were in science.) Thousands of physicists and chemists signed - including about 100 members of the National Academy, about 500 meteorologists and climate scientists, and numerous very eminent people in American science.

Since the initial 17,000 signatories (after which we stopped active solicitation), an additional 1,000 have signed - while about 25 have asked to have their signatures removed. [This was before the second round of solicitations was sent out bringing the number up to more than 31,000 -m]

For every signer we have a physical signature mailed to us by first class mail from the signer's address. No one has been listed who did not actually sign - except the Ozone Action signature, which they sent with false credentials, a false address, and a false signature. [The infamous, feeble Geri Halliwell prank which is still sometimes cited to discredit the petition - m]

The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.

The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz - past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the "enviro warmers" has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy.

Neither I nor any of my colleagues at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine have ever received any funds whatever from any energy industry corporation. The costs of the petition were born entirely by individual non tax deductible donations to a non tax deductible entity established solely for the petition. No energy industry funds were received.

Your emails on this subject are typical of those who promote the unproven hypothesis that human actions are responsible for the warming trend that has been in progress since the bottom of the Little Ice Age - at about the time of the American Revolutionary War. This was the coldest period in about 1,500 years. There are many records - both scientific and historic that substantiate this.

For example, J. Oerlemans, Science 308 (2005) pp 675-677 shows that world glaciers reached a maximum in length about 250 years ago and then began to shorten. One-half of the shortening to date occurred before Ford's first automobile and three-fourths of the shortening occurred before significant increase in atmospheric CO2. There has been no increase in rate of glacier melting in the past 60 years - in fact the rate has diminished slightly. There are two "bumps" in the temperature curve derived from the glacier shortening - both corresponding exactly to "bumps" in solar activity. Was George Washington a cause of glacier melting?

I note that you entirely ignore the scientific arguments and depend primarily upon parroting personal smears (published by others like you) of those who oppose you and claiming (without proof) that lots of people (almost everyone) agree(s) with you. Is this the method of determining natural truth that was taught to you in physics classes?

You may be interested to know that the highest percentage response to our request for signatures came from physicists. As a group, physicists tend to be very rigorous in their application of the scientific method.

Arthur B. Robinson (Originator and director of the Petition Project)
President and Research Professor - OISM
BS Chemistry Caltech; PhD Chemistry UCSD
Now I have no doubt you can find many alarmist blogs that smear Dr Robinson. It's all part of the game. There is no prominent skeptic who has not been smeared.

You keep bringing up stuff from alarmist blogs and other alarmist sources. I continue to maintain that you haven't given the skeptical side a hearing. Yes, there is no end of alarmist blogs and other sources that are in the business (as a main endeavor or a sideline) of attempting to discredit skeptics (except when they ignore their work). You're doing a great job finding them.
Old 08-24-11, 04:12 AM
  #188  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
I can understand not wanting to sift through all the back and forth (god knows I've wasted enough time on reading about this topic!). Taking new studies and judging their worth is a great way to see where the science is heading. However, ignoring where the debate has been will leave you with some rather big holes. One of those being the myriad of reasons why so many people bristle when they here about the "consensus". It also leads to quick, dismissive pictures (not by you) of people wearing tin foil hats when someone mentions the fact that Wikipedia has been a very untrustworthy source for this topic.

There are two types of people who have problems with CAGW (generally speaking), those that review the science and the history of this debate and conclude that it isn't adding up the way the alarmists would have you believe, and those who are idealogically driven to oppose it without much of an understanding of the science or the history of the debate. I think you'll find more of the former in these threads than the latter. In fact, based upon your posts, you would probably fit right in here with the opinions on things like chiropractics, vaccines, acupuncture, etc.
You can go back to any thread on here in the last two years about chiropractics, vaccines, acupuncture, religion, big bang and supernatural phenomena; I'm firmly on the side of reason. I follow a dozen blogs on skeptic science (normally medicine, but I'm growing into my physics pants) and worship at the church of Randi.

My intent wasn't to ignore the past, it's more like I'm still learning the past. Every link of letter Lib posts I devour. I suppose I should speak up more when I agree with a link... but in all honesty this thread is more about the skeptic side rather then anything balanced and the feeling I got was silence equals agreement.

So when I read something posted that seems off to me based on my general knowledge of science I look for the dissenting opinion. Sometime I feel the point I made (or borrowed) is a good one and Lib's response is poor. Other times, I think his response is dead-on and I let the matter die. I have no trouble with anyone else being right as the truth is what is important. I hate the term "alarmist" or "denier" as both terms poison the well and keep the two sides from moving towards common ground.

I don't think anyone here is tin-foil hat material... Lastly, I loved the other point you made. It was beautiful.

Spoiler:
Regardless of how this debate turns out, as the science is far from settled here, I truly believe, based on everything I have seen and read, that this will go down in history as one of those times. There have just been far too many instances of scientists acting in very unscientific ways. This happens on both sides of any scientific debate when careers, reputations, and money are at stake. However, it is clear to me that one side of this debate has been far, far, more guilty of this behavior. And not just from the fringe scientists, but from what is supposedly the "top" of the field. History will not look kindly on many of these scientists as good science always trumps bad science in the end (even if it takes awhile sometimes). Every scientist is a skeptic. The second they stop being one, they stop being a scientist.
Old 08-24-11, 08:00 AM
  #189  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Sorry, I don't remember it that way. I remember showing how many companies could make lots of money off of cap and trade.

Do you really think big companies give more support to skeptics than alarmists?
I think big companies give WAY more money to lobbyists protecting their financial interests. Why else would the Repubs do everything within their power to block anything that would remotely impact the bottom line? The Repubs may even believe in GW but unfettered capitalism is the primary goal in their short lifespans.
Old 08-24-11, 08:12 AM
  #190  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 125,628
Received 180 Likes on 146 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

No, crony capitalism is the primary goal to politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Old 08-24-11, 04:48 PM
  #191  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Ok, moving away from the ideology. I'm going back over a few key climate studies in an attempt to fill in the gaps as was suggested.

What is the skeptic/denier (s/d) outlook on Ocean Acidification research?

If we work under the agreed upon premise that oceans our are where we keep most of our carbon, and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (are those two statements correct?), would most of the natural CO2 increase come from, or be evident by, the ocean?

As far as I can tell from s/d geologist named Ian Plimer, CO2 and temperature have no correlation when looking back millions/billions of years. "The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reaction."

Geologists describe this feldspar and silicate buffering reaction as "In the oceans, dissolved silica and degraded silicates appear to participate in a reaction which fixes silica and alkali metal cations and releases hydrogen ions, resulting in maintenance of the pH." This premise, according again to Ian is critical to explaining how and why the CO2 is naturally in our atmosphere and balances itself out over millions of years.

So the skeptic/denier premise is basically from a Geologist standpoint. It appears that the mainstream/alarmist (m/a) premise is more from a basic chemistry/biology approach. Their opinion is that CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans because ocean acidification (pH going down) while atmosphere CO2 goes up. The claim is that contradiction is the made-made CO2. Geologists say that we had contradictions all the time over the last billions years.

Ok, but who really cares and what is the "alarm" part for? I'm still shaky on a bit so I might get shit wrong, but still, here goes:

When CO2 binds with the water molecules in the ocean they form carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O = H2CO3). Now almost all of the H2CO3 eventually turns into HCO3-, which in turn drops the pH of the ocean.

So the m/a folk maintain that since the pH of the oceans is decreasing (something that s/d say as well) that implies that the ocean is absorbing more carbon than it is releasing... which is proof of man-made climate change. S/d fire back with basically "past variance had mixed correlation millions of years ago" and "Ok... but what is the big deal?"

So right now both sides are seeing and agreeing to the same data, it is the interpretation of the numbers and data that seems to be the current conflict issue.

Our recent ocean acidity increase prediction is from pH 8.069 to pH 7.949 which means there is a large spike of carbonic acid. I'm NOT a chemist so I'm stealing the math here, At pH 8.1 the concentration of hydrogen cations is about 7.94×10^-9 mol/L: that is, 7.9 billionths of 1mol/L. A pH of 8.0 is 10^-8 mol/L hydrogen ions, or about 25% more than occurs at pH 8.1. This is a difference of 2 billionths of 1 mol/L.

To geologists, that 2 billionths of 1 mol/L is negligible. The world already has that variance in it depending on what ocean you go to. To chemists and biologists, it is huge. I think that is where the divergence of opinion comes from. Biologists view organism pH-sensitivity as a pretty serious matter (as does anyone who owns a fish tank). Geologists know that sea water has a natural variance of pH 7.8 to 8.3 so a .1 is still under the range of "normal."

So one side sees the immediate acid osmosis danger with regard to biochemistry (sea-life dies), the other says that the world will easily survive a shift to even twice that magnitude as the world continues to evolve... not that big a deal.

Is that basically it? "Some of our current ecosystem will likely die" versus "So what if it does? We had crap die for millions of years and that is normal."
Old 08-24-11, 05:20 PM
  #192  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Ok, moving away from the ideology. I'm going back over a few key climate studies in an attempt to fill in the gaps as was suggested.

What is the skeptic/denier (s/d) outlook on Ocean Acidification research?

If we work under the agreed upon premise that oceans our are where we keep most of our carbon, and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (are those two statements correct?), would most of the natural CO2 increase come from, or be evident by, the ocean?

As far as I can tell from s/d geologist named Ian Plimer, CO2 and temperature have no correlation when looking back millions/billions of years. "The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reaction."

Geologists describe this feldspar and silicate buffering reaction as "In the oceans, dissolved silica and degraded silicates appear to participate in a reaction which fixes silica and alkali metal cations and releases hydrogen ions, resulting in maintenance of the pH." This premise, according again to Ian is critical to explaining how and why the CO2 is naturally in our atmosphere and balances itself out over millions of years.

So the skeptic/denier premise is basically from a Geologist standpoint. It appears that the mainstream/alarmist (m/a) premise is more from a basic chemistry/biology approach. Their opinion is that CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans because ocean acidification (pH going down) while atmosphere CO2 goes up. The claim is that contradiction is the made-made CO2. Geologists say that we had contradictions all the time over the last billions years.

Ok, but who really cares and what is the "alarm" part for? I'm still shaky on a bit so I might get shit wrong, but still, here goes:

When CO2 binds with the water molecules in the ocean they form carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O = H2CO3). Now almost all of the H2CO3 eventually turns into HCO3-, which in turn drops the pH of the ocean.

So the m/a folk maintain that since the pH of the oceans is decreasing (something that s/d say as well) that implies that the ocean is absorbing more carbon than it is releasing... which is proof of man-made climate change. S/d fire back with basically "past variance had mixed correlation millions of years ago" and "Ok... but what is the big deal?"

So right now both sides are seeing and agreeing to the same data, it is the interpretation of the numbers and data that seems to be the current conflict issue.

Our recent ocean acidity increase prediction is from pH 8.069 to pH 7.949 which means there is a large spike of carbonic acid. I'm NOT a chemist so I'm stealing the math here, At pH 8.1 the concentration of hydrogen cations is about 7.94×10^-9 mol/L: that is, 7.9 billionths of 1mol/L. A pH of 8.0 is 10^-8 mol/L hydrogen ions, or about 25% more than occurs at pH 8.1. This is a difference of 2 billionths of 1 mol/L.

To geologists, that 2 billionths of 1 mol/L is negligible. The world already has that variance in it depending on what ocean you go to. To chemists and biologists, it is huge. I think that is where the divergence of opinion comes from. Biologists view organism pH-sensitivity as a pretty serious matter (as does anyone who owns a fish tank). Geologists know that sea water has a natural variance of pH 7.8 to 8.3 so a .1 is still under the range of "normal."

So one side sees the immediate acid osmosis danger with regard to biochemistry (sea-life dies), the other says that the world will easily survive a shift to even twice that magnitude as the world continues to evolve... not that big a deal.

Is that basically it? "Some of our current ecosystem will likely die" versus "So what if it does? We had crap die for millions of years and that is normal."
I'm a bit short on time, so I'll give some quick input. I think this is a good summary, with a few exceptions. While I think the is some validity to phrasing it as "so what...things die all the time" (as this is true). I also think that they would add the question "where is the evidence (observations) of ecosystems being destroyed"...and even more specifically, "where is the evidence of ecosystems being destroyed that would not have otherwise occurred due to natural climate variations". And this leads to the next question of "where is the evidence that we have any ability to affect these ecosystems that may or may not be destroyed, and at what cost will these changes be made". But of course that last question delves more into the policy realm and out of the hard science domain. Anyways, I'll read it again later when I have a bit more time.

Thanks for the discussion by the way, it's nice to have some more back and forth in these threads!
Old 08-24-11, 10:59 PM
  #193  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Ok, moving away from the ideology. I'm going back over a few key climate studies in an attempt to fill in the gaps as was suggested.

What is the skeptic/denier (s/d) outlook on Ocean Acidification research?

If we work under the agreed upon premise that oceans our are where we keep most of our carbon, and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (are those two statements correct?), would most of the natural CO2 increase come from, or be evident by, the ocean?

As far as I can tell from s/d geologist named Ian Plimer, CO2 and temperature have no correlation when looking back millions/billions of years. "The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reaction."

Geologists describe this feldspar and silicate buffering reaction as "In the oceans, dissolved silica and degraded silicates appear to participate in a reaction which fixes silica and alkali metal cations and releases hydrogen ions, resulting in maintenance of the pH." This premise, according again to Ian is critical to explaining how and why the CO2 is naturally in our atmosphere and balances itself out over millions of years.

So the skeptic/denier premise is basically from a Geologist standpoint. It appears that the mainstream/alarmist (m/a) premise is more from a basic chemistry/biology approach. Their opinion is that CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans because ocean acidification (pH going down) while atmosphere CO2 goes up. The claim is that contradiction is the made-made CO2. Geologists say that we had contradictions all the time over the last billions years.

Ok, but who really cares and what is the "alarm" part for? I'm still shaky on a bit so I might get shit wrong, but still, here goes:

When CO2 binds with the water molecules in the ocean they form carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O = H2CO3). Now almost all of the H2CO3 eventually turns into HCO3-, which in turn drops the pH of the ocean.

So the m/a folk maintain that since the pH of the oceans is decreasing (something that s/d say as well) that implies that the ocean is absorbing more carbon than it is releasing... which is proof of man-made climate change. S/d fire back with basically "past variance had mixed correlation millions of years ago" and "Ok... but what is the big deal?"

So right now both sides are seeing and agreeing to the same data, it is the interpretation of the numbers and data that seems to be the current conflict issue.

Our recent ocean acidity increase prediction is from pH 8.069 to pH 7.949 which means there is a large spike of carbonic acid. I'm NOT a chemist so I'm stealing the math here, At pH 8.1 the concentration of hydrogen cations is about 7.94×10^-9 mol/L: that is, 7.9 billionths of 1mol/L. A pH of 8.0 is 10^-8 mol/L hydrogen ions, or about 25% more than occurs at pH 8.1. This is a difference of 2 billionths of 1 mol/L.

To geologists, that 2 billionths of 1 mol/L is negligible. The world already has that variance in it depending on what ocean you go to. To chemists and biologists, it is huge. I think that is where the divergence of opinion comes from. Biologists view organism pH-sensitivity as a pretty serious matter (as does anyone who owns a fish tank). Geologists know that sea water has a natural variance of pH 7.8 to 8.3 so a .1 is still under the range of "normal."

So one side sees the immediate acid osmosis danger with regard to biochemistry (sea-life dies), the other says that the world will easily survive a shift to even twice that magnitude as the world continues to evolve... not that big a deal.

Is that basically it? "Some of our current ecosystem will likely die" versus "So what if it does? We had crap die for millions of years and that is normal."
I have mentioned Plimer as the author of Heaven and Earth, a skeptical book that has a lot of good points in it but I do think Plimer overreaches and makes some mistakes. I liked his book overall but I had more than a few criticisms, for example I think he is way off on volcanoes. It's been awhile since I read the book and I can't remember others offhand but I know there were others. He's not one of my favorites to quote from as I think he can be rather careless.

The main points of the CO2 effects on the oceans are rising temperatures and lowering pH. We need to consider their effects on life.

Those who have read these threads know that I have cited probably at least a dozen peer reviewed papers, most, if not all of which are experimental in nature. Waters of differing temperatures and pHs were used in seeing how they affected shell building invertebrates (the animals the alarmists are always saying will be devastated). These experiments have invariably shown that any effects are negligible, if there are any at all. For example, corals (the most widely cited as supposedly being in danger) have symbiotic relationships with algae. When temperatures change, corals "evict" their current algae partners and "invite in" different species of algae that allow them to keep functioning. They are very good at this. After all, they are thought to have existed for some 500 million years and have survived far worse than the tiny current changes (as I am wont to say, the alarmists have no sense of history nor do they want to have any). As far as acidification, experiments have shown that a large range of shelled invertebrates can continue to thrive in waters quite a bit more on the acidic side than anything that is happening now or is expected to happen in the foreseeable future. I remember posting a new study on sand dollars not long ago and there have been many others.

I hate to say it but I have never seen a single one of these experiment acknowledged on any alarmist site and I keep hearing the same alarms being sounded at every opportunity.

If there is anything that should have been put to rest by now in this debate, this is it.
Old 08-24-11, 11:05 PM
  #194  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
I think big companies give WAY more money to lobbyists protecting their financial interests. Why else would the Repubs do everything within their power to block anything that would remotely impact the bottom line? The Repubs may even believe in GW but unfettered capitalism is the primary goal in their short lifespans.
And many big companies know that cap and trade could enhance some of their bottom lines quite a lot (at least in the short run) - unfortunately, at our expense.

As I showed above, even the most evil of all evil companies, Exxon, has given more to the alarmist side than they have to the skeptical side. The other oil giants, BP and Shell, have given virtually (if not literally) all of their contributions to the alarmist side. Other giants such as GE and many others have also.

A company which actually was evil, Enron (you may remember it), was instrumental in pushing cap and trade. (BP also.)

http://the-classic-liberal.com/bp-enron-cap-trade/

Last edited by movielib; 08-24-11 at 11:12 PM.
Old 08-25-11, 12:55 AM
  #195  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

The preliminary results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN are in. You may recall that this experiment is to see if cosmic rays can influence cloud formation. These first results definitely establish that cosmic rays can increase nanometer-size particle formation by a factor of more than ten. But the size of these particles themselves is too small to serve as seeds for clouds. Still, this is considered an important first step. Subsequent experiments will try to resolve whether and how such particles can grow to sufficient size. (The missing link may be volatile organic compounds present in the real atmosphere that are not present in the CERN "CLOUD" chamber, a point from the paper that RealClimates blog post makes (see below)) Those who were hoping for definitive proof one way or another from what has always been promised as only the first step are probably disappointed. I admit to hoping for this myself and I know alarmists were hoping to kill the theory right here. Both sides' hopes were probably always unrealistic.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108....2011.504.html

Published online 24 August 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.504

News

Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays

Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.

Geoff Brumfiel

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

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.

Polarizing lens

"People are far too polarized, and in my opinion there are huge, important areas where our understanding is poor at the moment," says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN. In particular, he says, little controlled research has been done on exactly what effect cosmic rays can have on atmospheric chemistry.

To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulpher dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, 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, but it's a very important first step," he says.

Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. "Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality," says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.

Others disagree. The CLOUD experiment is "not firming up the connection", counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.

"I think it's an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment," says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment "probably raises more questions than it answers".

Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. "There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."
The Nature paper is behind a pay wall.

I think this comment at WUWT sums it up quite well:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/2...limate-change/

Gary Hladik says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:48 pm

So if I understand this correctly, the CLOUD results so far say that Svensmark COULD be right, i.e. that solar modulation of cosmic rays COULD have an effect of unknown magnitude on the Earth’s climate system. In other words, Svensmark hasn’t been proven right, but his work just passed an important test that could have proved it wrong.
A surprisingly (to me) good article has been written by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-interesting/

But again, at WUWT, I think a commenter has good insight:

John
Adam says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:52 pm

It’s interesting to read what Real Climate has to say about the subject. Of particular note is how rigorous they want the science before being able to say the sun affects climate, where as they only need a computer model to believe the importance of CO2 (this is not saying they’re wrong to want rigorous science, but that all science should be equally rigorous).
In any event, this is a historic paper regardless of what "side" one is on. This seems to be great science, done as science should be done. Nothing seems to be overstated one way or the other. We just have to be patient.
Old 08-25-11, 09:44 AM
  #196  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Follow up to the CERN CLOUD experiment. This is supplemental material released with the Nature study.

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/...ng_29JUL11.pdf

CLOUD Collaboration

Supporting information to press briefing on Nature publication, Kirkby et al., “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation”, DOI 10.1038/nature10343

The background to the CERN CLOUD experiment. CLOUD is tackling one of the most challenging and longstanding problems in atmospheric science – to understand how new aerosol particles are formed in the atmosphere and the effect these particles have on climate. Increases in atmospheric aerosol particles cool the climate by reflecting more sunlight and by forming additional cloud drops, thereby making clouds brighter. The increased amount of aerosol in the atmosphere caused by human activities is thought to have offset a large fraction of the warming caused by greenhouse gases. By current estimates, about half of all cloud drops are formed on aerosol particles that were “nucleated” (that is, produced from the clustering of trace atmospheric molecules rather than being emitted directly into the atmosphere, like sea spray particles). Nucleation is therefore likely to be important for climate. However, the physical mechanisms of nucleation are not understood, so global models have been based on theoretical calculations or have been adjusted to match observations. CLOUD aims to understand the nucleation process and therefore provide reliable aerosol physics to reduce the uncertainty in climate forcings and projections.

What exactly has CLOUD studied? CLOUD has studied the nucleation of new particles in a specially designed chamber under extremely well controlled conditions of temperature, humidity, ionisation and concentrations of nucleating vapours. We measured the creation of new particles caused by sulphuric acid and ammonia vapours, which have long been thought to account for nucleation in the real atmosphere. CLOUD also measured nucleation of new particles caused by ions that are generated in the air by cosmic rays. Carefully controlled laboratory experiments like CLOUD provide the best way of understanding whether cosmic rays could affect Earth’s clouds and climate, as has been proposed.

What is special about the CLOUD experiment? The CLOUD chamber has much lower concentrations of contaminants than all previous experiments, allowing us to measure the nucleation due to controlled amounts of selected trace gases without the complicating effect of undetected gases. CLOUD used state of the art instruments to measure very low concentrations of atmospheric vapours and, with a unique new instrument, has measured the chemistry and growth of newly formed charged molecular clusters from single molecules up to full particles. Another unique aspect is the capability to measure nucleation due to ionising natural cosmic rays, or due to enhanced ionisation provided by the CERN pion beam ‐ or with the effects of all ionisation completely suppressed.


What has CLOUD discovered and why is it important for our understanding of climate? There are several important discoveries from CLOUD. Firstly, we have shown that the most likely nucleating vapours, sulphuric acid and ammonia, cannot account for nucleation that is observed in the lower atmosphere. The nucleation observed in the chamber occurs at only one‐tenth to one‐thousandth of the rate observed in the lower atmosphere. Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.

Secondly, we have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10. Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, here CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.
So at the very least, once again the climate models are shown to be lacking - this time because they make a false assumption about cloud nucleation. We are, quite simply, way too ignorant about so many climate factors that there is no way we can know how to model climate in the first place. Tiny initial differences have huge differences in outcome and we cannot possibly hope to get the original factors right with our present level of knowledge.

What I think it means right now (and I could be wrong) is that we know less than we thought about cloud nucleation. Cosmic rays definitely have an effect on nucleation but we are missing the factor of how tiny particles become big enough to start to form clouds. I think further experiments at CLOUD will have to introduce situations more like the real atmosphere in the future. As stated in the paper, sulphuric acid and ammonia are not sufficient to form clouds as previously though and as the climate models assume. Organic compounds, according to the Nature paper, may be the key to "get there from here."

I will add that Shaviv and Veizer have shown that cosmic ray flux correlates well with temperatures over about a half billion years, far better than CO2 levels (this is, of course, disputed like everything is).

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

Correlation is not causation but noncorrelation certainly isn't causation and causation is much more likely to mesh with correlation than with noncorrelation (I hope that made sense). If Shaviv and Veizer are right, cosmic rays probably do have something to do with it and finding the mechanism is the key. But the CLOUD study seems to be saying that we do not now know what that mechanism is, whether or not cosmic rays play a significant part.

Last edited by movielib; 08-25-11 at 10:58 AM.
Old 08-25-11, 01:48 PM
  #197  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Yeah, that is a great step in the right direction.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/Press...ng_29JUL11.pdf

CERN had a press briefing, this is their final conclusion: “However,
 it 
is 
premature 
to 
conclude 
that 
cosmic
 rays 
have 
a 
significant 
influence
 on 
climate 
until
 the
 additional
 nucleating
 vapours
 have
 been
 identified,
 their
 ion
 enhancement
 measured,
 and
 the
 ultimate
 effects
 on
 clouds
 have
 been
 confirmed.”

And we already have studies looking into other factors that would explain what else may be going on based on the CERN data a decade ago.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/29.../1732.abstract

It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth's average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño. Nevertheless, the observation has raised the intriguing possibility that a cosmic ray–cloud interaction may help explain how a relatively small change in solar output can produce much larger changes in Earth's climate. Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables.


Thanks for posting Movie; this just goes to show that any complex scientific inquiry has various sets of data that can cause us to adjust our reasoning.
Old 08-25-11, 02:00 PM
  #198  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
And many big companies know that cap and trade could enhance some of their bottom lines quite a lot (at least in the short run) - unfortunately, at our expense.

As I showed above, even the most evil of all evil companies, Exxon, has given more to the alarmist side than they have to the skeptical side. The other oil giants, BP and Shell, have given virtually (if not literally) all of their contributions to the alarmist side. Other giants such as GE and many others have also.

A company which actually was evil, Enron (you may remember it), was instrumental in pushing cap and trade. (BP also.)

http://the-classic-liberal.com/bp-enron-cap-trade/
When you say things like "given more to the alarmist side" are you referring to research grants? How much is Exxon paying lobbyists in Washington to fight any legislation it deems harmful to their bottom line?
Old 08-25-11, 03:18 PM
  #199  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
When you say things like "given more to the alarmist side" are you referring to research grants?
There is grant money from governments, businesses and environmentalist groups.

How much is Exxon paying lobbyists in Washington to fight any legislation it deems harmful to their bottom line?
I don't know. Can you tell me how much lobbying money comes from those poor, destitute environmental groups?
Old 08-25-11, 03:21 PM
  #200  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Not anywhere near as much as energy companies, that's for damned sure. The environmentalist groups have nowhere near the ROI on lobbying. Lobbying corporate interests means billions in extra profit.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.