Global Warming?

[CowboyRon]

A really bright guy wouldn't be such an as4hole, so...

What's even worse is he's someones doctor.

 

[Dustier]

Well, to tell the truth, toppoop52 lied about the article, so ya'll are just giving each other an unwarranted, oily massage.:thumbsup: As for that crapolla eminating from HuostonTexas about "furthering the discussion": if that were some rule that could get you banned 90% of the deniers would be gone. This thread would just dry up from absence of color.

It's amusing to watch this thread fad away and as soon as somebody posts a "fact" the same cyber-people deniers burst forth! They don't ever post facts - they're just child-noise to clutter the discussion with baby mung. Most of the content they do post is so similar to what they've posted in the past it looks like cut 'n paste. As soon as this thread cools they'll put up enough posts to bury all the facts behind a few full page posts.

"furthering the discussion" - Let's face it, the only people being disingenuous are the one's constantly derailing the discussion. But we all need to keep in mind that some of us are not what we appear to be. I usually see an **** retentive, pot smoking slacker having some fun. :dance1:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

 

[IslandTractor]

Well a$zhole, here is the actual CERN study that was cited in synopsis form. CERN Experiment Finds Possible Link Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change | Popular ScienceAnother reference to the same article...CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register

Well, that's a start to getting us back to rational discourse. Of course you are just as big an A hole as you think I am but that's fine so long as we can agree on ground rules.

I think you know that the link you provided is not for the article but rather for a blog/news site run by a British IT company. It is not a synopsis. It is a simple newspaper/magazine article. I was interested in the qualifications of the journalist who wrote the article as this is a highly technical matter. These are the other articles he has written: Search He appears not to even be a science journalist but someone who covers the iphone and computer software beat. That is a problem for me as I don't know whether the guy was just fed lines from CERN or if he just picked up the stuff second hand off the web. Most likely the latter as I doubt seriously he has the credentials or training to get invited to a CERN news briefing on a Nature paper.

The second problem I have is that while our software/IT journalist is postulating that this changes everything in climate science, the original authors stated quite clearly that was not their own interpretation. So where it came from (?web most likely) is a mystery. Sounds rather like that Rose character who bamboozled you and others with the Daily Mail article a month ago.

Here is a quote from the site I linked to earlier on this exact point: "The lead author of the paper Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation Jasper Kirkby was on Nature in a podcast (listen to it at 21:44) and said unequivocally the effects he observed in his research would only occur in the uppermost atmosphere where clouds actually don’t even form and “you cannot use my research to make any definitive statement on the effect of cosmic rays on climate.” And here is an hour long lecture (very good) by Kirkby: Cosmic rays and climate - CERN Document Server Nothing at all damning about AGW theories in that either.

Top, you have a habit of posting links to denier blogs that contain frank lies. You are just not very critical in how you read this stuff. You've never posted a primary reference and rely on distorted journalistic pieces for your information. You also do very little research if any into the credibility of your sources. This latest example is a case in point. You quoted us a software/IT journalist as a source. That is rediculous. That unfortunately is one of the reasons these discussions never get far. If you post crap you will get crap as a response.

So, if you want to throw around links for the dittohead echo chamber then keep it up. Top will be happy. If you really want to discuss AGW then please do a bit more leg work and find reliable sources.

 

[IslandTractor]

What's even worse is he's someones doctor.

You better hope yours is at least as critical about what data he's willing to believe.

 

[toppop52]

Well, to tell the truth, toppoop52 lied about the article, so ya'll are just giving each other an unwarranted, oily massage.:thumbsup: As for that crapolla eminating from HuostonTexas about "furthering the discussion": if that were some rule that could get you banned 90% of the deniers would be gone. This thread would just dry up from absence of color.

It's amusing to watch this thread fad away and as soon as somebody posts a "fact" the same cyber-people deniers burst forth! They don't ever post facts - they're just child-noise to clutter the discussion with baby mung. Most of the content they do post is so similar to what they've posted in the past it looks like cut 'n paste. As soon as this thread cools they'll put up enough posts to bury all the facts behind a few full page posts.

"furthering the discussion" - Let's face it, the only people being disingenuous are the one's constantly derailing the discussion. But we all need to keep in mind that some of us are not what we appear to be. I usually see an **** retentive, pot smoking slacker having some fun. :dance1:

View attachment 287658
CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register

Well, to tell the truth, toppoop52 lied about the article...

I usually see an **** retentive, pot smoking slacker having some fun.

You should clean that mirror more often so you recognize that guy.
Where the h3ll do you get I lied, I posted the info as it was written, then I linked to the very article that Nature Journal printed. My goodness you AGW cultists are amazing, since I didn't lie, I guess that makes you a liar, now doesn't it, but then it ain't your first one is it?!

 

[toppop52]

CERN published the article, and Nature Journal printed it, Nature Journal will only print articles they believe are credible, as you well know they are very pro AGW, so for them to see enough evidence to cast some doubt on AGW is a big deal, whether you want to believe it or not. I'm not going to spend hours going through Nature Journal archives to satisfy you. The first time I Googled it it popped up as the first reference, now they want me to dig through the archives. Since I already read it, I figure the next guy that wants to know can find it like I did. I'm satisfied, you guys will never be so do as you please, but you're both wrong and none of us will live long enough to prove it.

 

[Dustier]

Climate Change

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

Climate Change:
A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean
and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change
may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere
or inland use.

Climate Extreme (extreme weather or climate event):
The occurrence of a value of a weather or climate variable above (or below)
a threshold value near the upper (or lower) ends of the range of observed values of the variable. For simplicity, both extreme
weather events and extreme climate events are referred to collectively as 祖limate extremes. The full definition is provided in Section 3.1.2

 

[IslandTractor]

CERN published the article, and Nature Journal printed it, Nature Journal will only print articles they believe are credible, as you well know they are very pro AGW, so for them to see enough evidence to cast some doubt on AGW is a big deal, whether you want to believe it or not. I'm not going to spend hours going through Nature Journal archives to satisfy you. The first time I Googled it it popped up as the first reference, now they want me to dig through the archives. Since I already read it, I figure the next guy that wants to know can find it like I did. I'm satisfied, you guys will never be so do as you please, but you're both wrong and none of us will live long enough to prove it.

I don't think you were lying, you're sloppy though. You just posted a blatently untruthful blog entry you got off the web because you didn't bother checking it out. Here is a more responsible real science journalist reporting of the Nature paper and its context:Cloud-making: Another human effect on the climate - environment - 24 August 2011 - New Scientist

I'm still not sure you have read it. You stated "Since I already read it", but I rather doubtyou have access or have read the Nature paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html#/access If you have I am impressed that you subscribe to Nature ($199/yr) as the paper is not in the public domain. Maybe you have university access to it. I cannot post the paper here but if you want a copy send me your email.

The Nature paper certainly doesn't contain anything damning of AGW greenhouse gas hypothesies. Kirkby in the lecture he gave (I posted the link last night) makes zero claims about dismissing CO2 as a major factor in AGW and in fact shows a graph demonstrating what a big impact CO2 has on warming. He doesn't address either the continued warming trend over the past 25 years in a period of increasing cosmic radiation which should, by the cosmic ray theory, result in cooling. Bottom line, this is an interesting paper. As far as "proving" that cosmic rays play an important role in climate change it is on the order of discovering that you have butter in the refrigerator when trying to make a cake. You cannot make cake without butter but that is not the same has finding a cake. If they cannot show nucleation then the cosmic theory doesn't work but showing it in a laboratory with smaller (by a factor of 50) size nuclei than necessary to start cloud formation is hardly a slam dunk. Still, an interesting paper.

The lecture link I posted Cosmic rays and climate - CERN Document Server is very interesting as he reviews hundreds of thousands of years of climate data obtained by different methods and discusses interesting details on methodology that should really give pause to those who think all this climate data is fudged or imprecise.

So, bottom line: this is an interesting study that was completely distorted by the denier blogs when it came out a year or so ago. Those bogus claims have been thoroughly dismissed by both the lead author of the Nature paper and by others. Still, the nature of the internet allows uncritical and frankly sloppy as well as intentional deceit to continue through reposting of the bogus denier material even a year later. Cat and Houston routinely refer to and repost such material that has been shown to be false (CO2 from volcanoes etc etc). Anyone who is serious about understanding the science behind climate change really needs to stop reading oil industry funded blogs and broaden their horizons. The IPCC summaries are a good place to start and then by all means read some of the criticisms of those summaries by real scientifically oriented skeptics. Don't wear blinders and please don't repost the crap you find on right wing blogs. those things are written to confuse non scientists and apparently are very successful just the way the Tobacco Institute confused the public about smoking and cancer for several decades. That is intellectually dishonest and we have now several instances (Daily Mail, Nature) where such posts have been trumpeted by one of our TBN deniers.

I don't think it matters all that much whether you lie or willingly repost lies, in both cases it doesn't reflect well on the poster.

 

[toppop52]

I read the CERN report, I did not read it in the Journal, I read it directly. I quoted them and several others when I said it was in the Journal, however when Iclicked the link in the CERn referenced piece it took me to the Nature Journal's article. I didn't go into great detail because both CERN and the Journal are quite reputable. I may have been sloppy in your opinion because my life sometimes dictates my schedule, that often doesn't include appeasing disagreeable's.

 

[IslandTractor]

Back to the issue raised last week regarding Sandy and AGW. Here is the relevant section from the executive summary of IPCC's extreme weather report:

" There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led
to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence
that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is
likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in
mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical
mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide
only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic
influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. "

I think the last sentence sums it up.