Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GBdamo

"sun Causes Climate Change Shock"

Recommended Posts

How has this been reported in the MSM? I've been out of the country since the 25th so missed all the fanfare and gnashing of teeth from our esteemed climatologists in east Anglia. Saw bits on the Spanish news but me no speaky the lingo.

Published in Nature on the 25/08/2011 and reported at the links below

The Telegraph

The register

The Guardian

BBC (for balance :lol: )

Jasper Kirkby and his team have put forward, for scrutiny, their proposal that cloud formation on earth is driven, to some degree, by cosmic rays and these cosmic rays are in turn controlled by the activity of our own sun. oh, and also most climate models are gonads.

From the press release pdf

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.

My reading of this is that there is another flaw in the climate models used to predict catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And SECONDLY opens a whole new avenue for debate as to what does cause the majority of cloud to form. I think Kirkby has a very strong inclination as to what the answer will be but, like a proper scientist, he only talks in certainties about the things which he is certain.

The BBC's spin

(Jasper Kirkby)We've found that this can only account for a tenth to a thousandth of the rate that's observed. So it's clear from this first set of measurements that our present treatment of aerosols in climate models needs to be revised quite a lot."
Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained.

Note the inclusion of 'human-caused' - WE WILL KEEP OUR DREAM ALIVE!!!

Climate science is about as settled as a gazelle drinking from a muddy pool in the Serengeti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained

So the Professor states this is unknown - yet the BBC feel the need to put in human caused ? Did the Professor specifically state this ? If so was this the only thing he stated that he felt could be this 'unknown cause' ? And if not why did the BBC specifically single out 'human-caused' ?

Interesting to note this morning on BBC they made a very brief comment that this has been the coldest summer for 18 years. What did they link this to ? Climate change of course ? No. They linked it to the cost of heating your home. Climate change/global warming was not even mentioned. :rolleyes:

BBC certainly being far more cautious these days beofre throwing out the climate change is the root of all evil mantra that they did for so many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained

So the Professor states this is unknown - yet the BBC feel the need to put in human caused ? Did the Professor specifically state this ? If so was this the only thing he stated that he felt could be this 'unknown cause' ? And if not why did the BBC specifically single out 'human-caused' ?

Interesting to note this morning on BBC they made a very brief comment that this has been the coldest summer for 18 years. What did they link this to ? Climate change of course ? No. They linked it to the cost of heating your home. Climate change/global warming was not even mentioned. :rolleyes:

BBC certainly being far more cautious these days beofre throwing out the climate change is the root of all evil mantra that they did for so many years.

No offence CCC but I knid of expected you to come along, It's the other two I'm fishing for. :D

You are right though, how bizarre the way the BBC put their own slant onto things. I thought it was their job to report the news not write it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University, UK, concurs: "Something else, as yet unknown, is helping enhance the nucleation rates there. Depending on its source, this could even be unexpected additional (human-caused) climate forcing or feedback effect (on the climate)," he explained

So the Professor states this is unknown - yet the BBC feel the need to put in human caused ? Did the Professor specifically state this ? If so was this the only thing he stated that he felt could be this 'unknown cause' ? And if not why did the BBC specifically single out 'human-caused' ?

Interesting to note this morning on BBC they made a very brief comment that this has been the coldest summer for 18 years. What did they link this to ? Climate change of course ? No. They linked it to the cost of heating your home. Climate change/global warming was not even mentioned. :rolleyes:

BBC certainly being far more cautious these days beofre throwing out the climate change is the root of all evil mantra that they did for so many years.

Erm, it's simple editing isn't it? The quote is probably taken from a longer statement from the Professor that makes it clear that when he says 'additional climate forcing', he is referring to the man-made effects. adding the bit in brackets is just a shorthand way of doing this without using the whole quote. It's used in lots of journalism from films, music, news to science.

Anyway, given that the climate is already a natural system, what else would 'additional climate forcing' mean other than non-natural, i.e. human effects?

Really, you anti-MMGW ranters are as bad as the poltical green tax lobbyists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC certainly being far more cautious these days beofre throwing out the climate change is the root of all evil mantra that they did for so many years.

Maybe they have latched on to the shitty economic forecasts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the story here?

It has long been suspected that cosmic rays may play a part in cloud formation, and this experiment has provided some more evidence that this is indeed the case. It does not in any way invalidate the MMGW theory, though it may help climatologists to improve their models.

Otherwise it's simply a case of parts of the MSM grabbing at straws (i.e. deliberately misinterpreting the science) to advance their anti-MMGW agenda. Which is, of course, lapped up by their gullible readership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, it's simple editing isn't it? The quote is probably taken from a longer statement from the Professor that makes it clear that when he says 'additional climate forcing', he is referring to the man-made effects. adding the bit in brackets is just a shorthand way of doing this without using the whole quote. It's used in lots of journalism from films, music, news to science.

Anyway, given that the climate is already a natural system, what else would 'additional climate forcing' mean other than non-natural, i.e. human effects?

Really, you anti-MMGW ranters are as bad as the poltical green tax lobbyists.

Maybe not CCC's point but mine, in highlighting that text, was to show how the author of the article left the door open to future research. The BBCs and Prof. Lockwoods approach was to fill that door with their agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence CCC but I knid of expected you to come along, It's the other two I'm fishing for. :D

You are right though, how bizarre the way the BBC put their own slant onto things. I thought it was their job to report the news not write it.

We only have to look at house price related stories to know this is 100% not true.

Erm, it's simple editing isn't it? The quote is probably taken from a longer statement from the Professor that makes it clear that when he says 'additional climate forcing', he is referring to the man-made effects. adding the bit in brackets is just a shorthand way of doing this without using the whole quote. It's used in lots of journalism from films, music, news to science.

Anyway, given that the climate is already a natural system, what else would 'additional climate forcing' mean other than non-natural, i.e. human effects?

Really, you anti-MMGW ranters are as bad as the poltical green tax lobbyists.

I imagine additional climate forcing could mean all manner of things. From natural methane leakage to volcanic eruptions to who knows what else.

I suppose we could take a look in the actual paper (If available ?) and see if more detail is in there.

And as for the anti-MMGW ranters bit ? You clearly have never read anything I have had to say on this subject. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We only have to look at house price related stories to know this is 100% not true.

I imagine additional climate forcing could mean all manner of things. From natural methane leakage to volcanic eruptions to who knows what else.

I suppose we could take a look in the actual paper (If available ?) and see if more detail is in there.

And as for the anti-MMGW ranters bit ? You clearly have never read anything I have had to say on this subject. ;)

Sorry, I didn't realise you had quoted GBDamo in your post.

If you read the other reports as well as the BBC one I think it's clear that 'additional climate forcing' does mean human induced effects because he also mentions the 'unknown' bits which are the things like you have mentioned - natural causes - but we either don't know they exist or can't estimate their impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not CCC's point but mine, in highlighting that text, was to show how the author of the article left the door open to future research. The BBCs and Prof. Lockwoods approach was to fill that door with their agenda.

No they didn't. All things being equal there is a chance that humans do have an effect on climate (or not). Not mentioning this would be misrepresenting the science. However, the report doesn't try to blame it all on human effects either. So it's not really going one way or the other.

Yet you seem to see it as biased to MMGW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the story here?

The story is, as you well know, that the 'settled science' behing AGW is far from settled. And that, as increased cloud cover leads to a decrease in global temperatures, there is now a potential new mechanism that adds causation to the already strong corelation between solar activity and the earths climate.

And no I'm not saying this is the answer but it is a new direction that may provide one. Again the science is not settled.

It has long been suspected that cosmic rays may play a part in cloud formation, and this experiment has provided some more evidence that this is indeed the case. It does not in any way invalidate the MMGW theory, though it may help climatologists to improve their models.

Otherwise it's simply a case of parts of the MSM grabbing at straws (i.e. deliberately misinterpreting the science) to advance their anti-MMGW agenda. Which is, of course, lapped up by their gullible readership.

The subtle shift in position was eagerly anticipated, and lo - it happened :lol:

'Improve their models' that shouldn't be difficult, it must be 10 years of this tosh and I've not heard of one accurate model yet. More like rewrite them based on observation rather than ideology.

Yes, that's how I understood the argument to go. As I mentioned, the phenomenon has been investigated, but no correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation seems to have been found. Of course, the phenomenon may well be real, but it does appear to be insignificant in comparison with other climate drivers.

Edit: during the last few decades, at least.

Answer me one question, in one word.

Is the science relating to AGW settled? YES?NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they didn't. All things being equal there is a chance that humans do have an effect on climate (or not). Not mentioning this would be misrepresenting the science. However, the report doesn't try to blame it all on human effects either. So it's not really going one way or the other.

Yet you seem to see it as biased to MMGW?

No I'm against the politically and financially motivated rhetoric that is peddled and my biggest dislike is the attempts to stifle any counter argument. When I see this tactic in use it rings alarm bells.

If, and OK I do think it's a big if, we are responsible for changing the climate (that has yet to materialise) I would hate to see people profiteering on the back of it. That is what Al Gore is all about and in their own way the scientists at CRU.

I hate the term 'The science is settled', it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story is, as you well know, that the 'settled science' behing AGW is far from settled. And that, as increased cloud cover leads to a decrease in global temperatures, there is now a potential new mechanism that adds causation to the already strong corelation between solar activity and the earths climate.

And no I'm not saying this is the answer but it is a new direction that may provide one. Again the science is not settled.

The subtle shift in position was eagerly anticipated, and lo - it happened :lol:

'Improve their models' that shouldn't be difficult, it must be 10 years of this tosh and I've not heard of one accurate model yet. More like rewrite them based on observation rather than ideology.

Answer me one question, in one word.

Is the science relating to AGW settled? YES?NO

What shift in position? Back in 2009(!), I wrote "Of course, the phenomenon may well be real."

And no, of course the science is not settled. Science is never "settled". The theories of fluid dynamics and quantum dynamics are not "settled" and probably never will be, but that doesn't stop us building aeroplanes and computers.

Your stupid questions simply reveal your own lack of understanding of how science progresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't realise you had quoted GBDamo in your post.

If you read the other reports as well as the BBC one I think it's clear that 'additional climate forcing' does mean human induced effects because he also mentions the 'unknown' bits which are the things like you have mentioned - natural causes - but we either don't know they exist or can't estimate their impact.

I had a brief read of the 1st two articles and nothing was too obvious. The first article was very interesting though. Put a lot more detail and info behind this latest research.

Just shows how one study can be presented in different ways - very easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a brief read of the 1st two articles and nothing was too obvious. The first article was very interesting though. Put a lot more detail and info behind this latest research.

Just shows how one study can be presented in different ways - very easily.

The conclusion of the actual press release:

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.

The Telegraph's presentation of this:

The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

I wouldn't call that detail and info, I'd call it misrepresentation and lying.

Edit: Of course, the interesting question is: Why is The Telegraph lying about climate change science? Is it simply to promote its own circulation by telling people what they want to hear? Or is there a deeper agenda at work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing on climate change I heard was some South African joker on the radio saying CC denial should be treated like a hate crime i.e. outlawed. His reasoning was a solution can only get moving once the "discussion was closed".

ahem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What shift in position? Back in 2009(!), I wrote "Of course, the phenomenon may well be real."

And no, of course the science is not settled. Science is never "settled". The theories of fluid dynamics and quantum dynamics are not "settled" and probably never will be, but that doesn't stop us building aeroplanes and computers.

Your stupid questions simply reveal your own lack of understanding of how science progresses.

maybe, but you have taken a very totalitarian view on climate science referring to those who question it as ignorant sceptics. You cling to the peer review system (like a comfort blanket), which has been proved to be corrupted.

I have a very sound understanding of scientific progress, god know I've had to put up with enough of them over the years, and there are many examples throughout history of where it has been hindered by vested interests. So often these gravy trains come along, who knows who ultimately started them and to what nefarious end but, there are those that know it's a crock who drive and go along for the ride but they also seem to suck in well-meaning otherwise intelligent people to act as the foot soldiers, I think the term useful idiots applies here.

Climate change has never been dealt with scientifically it has been forced upon the world as fact. Its proponents have used bullying tactics to side-line and silence those who hold a different view or even wanted to research an opposing view.

You might think me stupid, that's fine it's your opinion (and probably true in some aspects). I however see you in that camp of AGW supporters who have bought in, almost religiously, to an ideology that is turning sour. With the exception of the odd remark it has been dropped from the public view as more and more people want to remove themselves from association with this squalid and self-serving group. Expect, in the future, to see more and more of your peers readjust their position from one of absolute certainty to one of 'well it was only a theory' and 'it's all part of the scientific process'.

The way your lot have behaved is nothing to do with science.

oh, and we'll still be left with the taxes and regulations when the whole thing blows over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing on climate change I heard was some South African joker on the radio saying CC denial should be treated like a hate crime i.e. outlawed. His reasoning was a solution can only get moving once the "discussion was closed".

ahem

Simillar thing was reproted yesterday, Al Gore likening CC sceptics to racists. It was in the mail though.

People who don't buy a scientific theory are the same as those who think people with different colour skin are less intelegent and less worthy. OK Al :rolleyes:

These are truly horrible people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion of the actual press release:

The Telegraph's presentation of this:

I wouldn't call that detail and info, I'd call it misrepresentation and lying.

Edit: Of course, the interesting question is: Why is The Telegraph lying about climate change science? Is it simply to promote its own circulation by telling people what they want to hear? Or is there a deeper agenda at work?

I read the Telegraph piece yesterday - it's a comment piece by James Delingpole rather than the Telegraph's own editorial. He is, how can I say it, quite calculating in the way he puts his points across. Almost as if he is looking to wind people up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion of the actual press release:

The Telegraph's presentation of this:

I wouldn't call that detail and info, I'd call it misrepresentation and lying.

Edit: Of course, the interesting question is: Why is The Telegraph lying about climate change science? Is it simply to promote its own circulation by telling people what they want to hear? Or is there a deeper agenda at work?

That is why I posted the the press relrease and four different reports on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion of the actual press release:

The Telegraph's presentation of this:

I wouldn't call that detail and info, I'd call it misrepresentation and lying.

Edit: Of course, the interesting question is: Why is The Telegraph lying about climate change science? Is it simply to promote its own circulation by telling people what they want to hear? Or is there a deeper agenda at work?

As I said - just shows how easy it is to display the same study in different ways. This does happen on both sides of this debate - no argument there. However let us not be naive here. The side that has been doing it for longer and has been getting far more press coverage - is not difficult to work out.

Maybe the work is turning and the opposite is about to happen ? Who knows.

I read the Telegraph piece yesterday - it's a comment piece by James Delingpole rather than the Telegraph's own editorial. He is, how can I say it, quite calculating in the way he puts his points across. Almost as if he is looking to wind people up...

Perhaps. Then again some of the articles and news clips I have witnessed from the BBC look like they have been designed to wind people up.

That is why I posted the the press relrease and four different reports on it.

Yep - just shows how different people's takes can be on the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distance to the sun varies. The sun rotates around the barycenter of the solar system in a very complex spirograph type pattern. This may well explain the cycles too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distance to the sun varies. The sun rotates around the barycenter of the solar system in a very complex spirograph type pattern. This may well explain the cycles too.

The answers lie in the spirograph? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distance to the sun varies. The sun rotates around the barycenter of the solar system in a very complex spirograph type pattern. This may well explain the cycles too.

We're at the closest to the sun in January, so that clearly doesn't make a great deal of difference. Long-term changes would have to be bigger than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're at the closest to the sun in January, so that clearly doesn't make a great deal of difference. Long-term changes would have to be bigger than that.

I know. Thus the southern hemisphere should experience slightly more extreme weather since it gets more radiation in its summer. The oscillation is interesting because the center of the solar system, which the sun rotates around is often outside the sun meaning the sun can be further away. When it passes through the sun, you get disruption causing changes in radiation. This is thought to be the origin of sun spot cycles. Doesn't it take a million years for a photon to go from the middle to the surface of the sun? How much does the suns brightness vary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.