Our cooling world

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Check the date of those papers I cited Petros. These are articles on the leading edge of cloud and aerosol physics. Correlations like those you mention don't mean much without causation, and that's what is routinely found to be missing.

The guys from NASA say that solar irradience is important, and it is. Cosmic rays...not so much.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,738
12,951
113
Low Earth Orbit
Check the date of those papers I cited Petros. These are articles on the leading edge of cloud and aerosol physics. Correlations like those you mention don't mean much without causation, and that's what is routinely found to be missing.

The guys from NASA say that solar irradience is important, and it is. Cosmic rays...not so much.
You better get on the phone and tell CERN they are wasting their time. I'm sure they'd love to hear from a geoscientist such as yourself.

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576

Read up Peabody.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
The solution sounds very clear then... Placement of all data stations should either be exclusively located in urban areas, miles away from any developments.
That would make sense if urbanity covered most of the globe. But it doesn't. Between 1 and 2% of the globe is urban.

That would represent a simple and cost effective solution, right?...
About the same as having a basket with 2 lemons in it and 4 dozen apples and calling the average mostly yellow.
Kinda makes you wonder why this situation exists at all?
Keep wondering.

Spare me OK... Time to get over it.
Then quit being a snivelling hypocrite.

There's a fundamental difference between our respective logic processes;
Yeah, you don't have any.
there are those that are capable of independent thought and critical analysis while there are those that simply follow the trends and reluctantly (if ever) challenge convention.
You aren't either. You blundered into your fallacious dogma and are sticking to it regardless of whatever anyone posts.
Posting links to which you don't or refuse to understand the dynamic content is proof that you can surf the net, that's about it.
And there are those that can understand English; you aren't one of them. You seem to have latched onto one dumb link I posted, not even knowing which link in it I was referring to and based your false conclusion on that.

I'll say this for Tonnington, while I do not support his position in any way shape or form, he is one that exemplifies independent thought
Yes, he does. He can also understand science a lot better than you and he isn't as prone to ignoring points because they may disagree with him as you are.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
You better get on the phone and tell CERN they are wasting their time. I'm sure they'd love to hear from a geoscientist such as yourself.

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576

Read up Peabody.

Ok, page 6:

However, there is no established physical mechanism, and
so solar-climate variability is:
‣ Controversial subject
‣ Not included in current climate models

Like I said, and cited papers for, there is no evidence of any physical established mechanism. The second part, is clearly false. If you don't include the sun in your climate model, then you don't have solar energy, and you end up with a snowball.

If you read my references, you'd see that the scientists suggest that good old solar irradience is more likely to be responsible for the climate factors, and irradience is part of the same cycles. See my response to ironsides.

Anything else?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
There are two main theories that attempt to explain recent changes in climate: the first states that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are the main driver, and the second claims that varying solar activity, amplified by corresponding changes in cloud cover, are most important. The first is promoted heavily by politicians and activists, based on computer modelling; as for the second, the most interesting work is quietly being pursued at CERN, the European Centre for Nuclear Research.

The solar amplification theory depends on the seeding of clouds by galactic cosmic rays (GCR), the numbers of which are in turn controlled partially by the strength of solar activity. When that activity is low, the solar magnetic field strength and solar wind are low, allowing more GCRs into the Earth's atmosphere, thereby creating more clouds, which reflect solar energy back into space. Low solar activity means slightly lower energy from the Sun, and less of this gets through to the Earth's surface - the cooling effect is thereby amplified. The reverse is the case when activity is high.

The challenge is to identify and describe the mechanism that allows GCRs to create more clouds. A first step in this direction was taken with the successful SKY experiment by Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen, and then expanded three years ago with the CLOUD experiment at CERN - a collaboration between scientists from 19 institutes in ten countries.

The intention is to use particle beams from the accelerators to simulate cosmic rays entering the lower atmosphere under various conditions - all carefully controlled and monitored. Initial results have proved encouraging, and so the experiment is being ramped up, and the new specifications are labelled CLOUD09.
It's pretty interesting, alright. But, this is only one factor of forcing. There are more, obviously.

I did a little digging (it's something I seem willing to do that you aren't, morgan) and found this pdf and lecture explaining the pdf:

pdf;
http://21stcenturywaves.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Kirkby.CERN_.20091.pdf

lecture;
CERN Document Server: Record#1181073: Cosmic rays and climate

The abstract says
Abstract The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming - and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations - although disputed - suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.
Unfortunately, their hypothesis seems to forget a few things; for instance, that at no time in history has the warming developed at the rate it seems to be now (as far as science can tell).
So if something influentially relevant comes of this the science will continue on the premise that humans pollute which causes an effect on climate with the caveat that there are other influences. But, that caveat exists now and this new research will simply be added to it.

If you have the time Kirby goes through his entire theory on a video lecture.. I'll find the link. I posted it awhile back.


CERN Document Server: Record#1181073: Cosmic rays and climate
Yeah. What he said.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Then quit being a snivelling hypocrite.

Yeah, you don't have any.You aren't either. You blundered into your fallacious dogma and are sticking to it regardless of whatever anyone posts. And there are those that can understand English; you aren't one of them. You seem to have latched onto one dumb link I posted, not even knowing which link in it I was referring to and based your false conclusion on that.

Yes, he does. He can also understand science a lot better than you and he isn't as prone to ignoring points because they may disagree with him as you are.


Your response is as expected Anna and yet, somehow you act all surprised and hurt when you get back similar treatment in turn... Kinda sad really

Just for fun, I wanted to highlight one component of your post and ask you a basic, low level question:

That would make sense if urbanity covered most of the globe. But it doesn't. Between 1 and 2% of the globe is urban.

About the same as having a basket with 2 lemons in it and 4 dozen apples and calling the average mostly yellow. Keep wondering.

Yet, somehow that 2% (likely much less) is magically representative of whether or not the globe is warming/cooling?

I'll wager that this never possibly occurred to you, did it?.. That's some great logic.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Your response is as expected Anna and yet, somehow you act all surprised and hurt when you get back similar treatment in turn...
I do? News to me.
Kinda sad really
Yeah, you are. I sympathise.
BTW, I don't care what you expect.

Just for fun, I wanted to highlight one component of your post and ask you a basic, low level question:



Yet, somehow that 2% (likely much less) is magically representative of whether or not the globe is warming/cooling?

I'll wager that this never possibly occurred to you, did it?.. That's some great logic.
roflmao
That's one of the worst spins I've seen in a long time. Sorry, but my point was that Pet and you (mostly because you probably haven't a clue about UHI and Pet appears to be "on your side") seem to be relying on that 1 to 2% of UHI as something to use to deal a major blow to AGW science.

Oh, but don't stop spinning like that, it's amusing.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Here's a well known fact that those claiming UHI contaminates the surface record ought to know, but apparently don't. The global temperature record is processed to remove the UHI. It's done by looking at satellite images to determine the brightness of the surface, and then the "bright" urban areas are infilled with data from a neighbouring "dark" rural thermometer.

And for the satellites, they cover 95% of the globe, though they don't actually measure the surface temperature, they measure the lower tropospheric temperature, aka the near surface layer.

UHI is well known, and adjusted for.

And the difference between the good and bad stations?



Negligible.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Here's a well known fact that those claiming UHI contaminates the surface record ought to know, but apparently don't. The global temperature record is processed to remove the UHI. It's done by looking at satellite images to determine the brightness of the surface, and then the "bright" urban areas are infilled with data from a neighbouring "dark" rural thermometer.

And for the satellites, they cover 95% of the globe, though they don't actually measure the surface temperature, they measure the lower tropospheric temperature, aka the near surface layer.

UHI is well known, and adjusted for.
Yup. I mentioned that in post #234. It was conveniently ignored, though.

And the difference between the good and bad stations?



Negligible.
But this'll be ignored, too.
 

relic

Council Member
Nov 29, 2009
1,408
3
38
Nova Scotia
I don't have any links,no fancy charts or graphs, but i am sixty years old,and tha summers are hotter and the winters are milder with less snow. You can call it whatever the hell you like but it's getting warmer,anybody wants to argue has been under a rock or is only ten years old
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
lol.

So far, we've had volcanoes, solar flares, polar shift, UHI, electricity (darkbeaver's pet) used as excuses for global warming and flatout denial of human involvement.

Even the scientist in the video about GCRs showed that GCRs would be a minor forcing agent (if it's found that they have an effect at all) on climate.

I have no doubts that there are a number of factors, but I still haven't seen a rational argument against human involvement.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I do? News to me. Yeah, you are.
BTW, I don't care what you expect.

I'm guessing that most everything is news to you... Nice comeback by the way, what are you, 7 years old?


That's one of the worst spins I've seen in a long time. Sorry, but my point was that Pet and you (mostly because you probably haven't a clue about UHI and Pet appears to be "on your side") seem to be relying on that 1 to 2% of UHI as something to use to deal a major blow to AGW science.

Learn to read before you post.

Once again, you've missed the point entirely... Big surprise there.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
You're the one that seems to like dishing crap out and whining about having it thrown back in your face.
I'm guessing that most everything is news to you... Nice comeback by the way, what are you, 7 years old?
If she was, it'd make you about 2.

Learn to read before you post.
Learn to post coherently.

Once again, you've missed the point entirely... Big surprise there.
UHI is irrelevant and that is the point. It was BS to even introduce it to the thread.
 
Last edited:

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You're the one that seems to like dishing crap out and whining about having it thrown back in your face.If she was, it'd make you about 2.

You can read, can't you, I mean, better than wifey, right?... tell ya what, why don't you actually go back and read the exchanges before you wade in and look foolish.

It seems like Anna pines for fights with me at least and goes out of her way to snipe at me. Ultimately, I don't give a rip one way or the other, but if she wants dish it out, then she'd better be ready for both barrels.

Learn to post coherently.

That still won't replace wifey's inability to read.

UHI is irrelevant and that is the point. It was BS to even introduce it to the thread.


Well, thank you ever so much Mr. Science!

Perhaps you can settle this entire issue by just telling the world what is applicable and what isn't based on your vast knowledge.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So to sum it up, urban heat islands exist, but scientists have been aware of this for far longer than UHI has existed as a talking point amongst deniers. Hence the number of papers on homogeneity that you'll find for various data products like HadCRUT, NASA GISStemp, NCDC, and other networks.

Quality control and assurance does exist in science...the notion that the human impact on temperatures is due to the changes in albedo, thermal conductivity, and heat capacity is ludicrous, and demonstrably so.

It is effectively wrapped up, but that is not to say that there aren't still people who work on improving quality of data.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
You can read, can't you, I mean, better than wifey, right?... tell ya what, why don't you actually go back and read the exchanges before you wade in and look foolish.
One could say the same thing to you and be at least as correct.

It seems like Anna pines for fights with me at least and goes out of her way to snipe at me.
I do the same with your brother, SJP. He tends to ignore posts containing science that contradicts his pet hypotheses, too.
Ultimately, I don't give a rip one way or the other, but if she wants dish it out, then she'd better be ready for both barrels.
lmao I haven't felt a thing so far.

That still won't replace wifey's inability to read.
lol And what about your inability to read? You've been shown that UHI is irrelevant to GW a couple of times and yet you keep babbling on about it.
Well, thank you ever so much Mr. Science!

Perhaps you can settle this entire issue by just telling the world what is applicable and what isn't based on your vast knowledge.
Apparently you didn't watch the video that Petros posted, or at least didn't have a clue what the first part was about. The second part was simply the explanation of what scientists were studying about GCRs and the first part, which you keep ignoring, is the science up to where their research started. But that is no surprise. You seem to want to cherry pick little parts that you seem to think supports your position.

CERN Document Server: Record#1181073: Cosmic rays and climate

And here's a simple and easy-to-understand explanation (that I posted twice before) of why UHI has a negligible effect on GW:

Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?

And going back to where I posted a partial list of things people and companies could do to reduce carbon output, which you denied would work without causing the sky to fall down, you still haven't answered my question as to what you think would happen if people took those measures and sequestered whatever carbon we couldn't reduce. I haven't seen hide nor hair of any kind of answer. So you either haven't a clue, or else you don't want to answer because it would upend your pet dogma.

So to sum it up, urban heat islands exist, but scientists have been aware of this for far longer than UHI has existed as a talking point amongst deniers. Hence the number of papers on homogeneity that you'll find for various data products like HadCRUT, NASA GISStemp, NCDC, and other networks.

Quality control and assurance does exist in science...the notion that the human impact on temperatures is due to the changes in albedo, thermal conductivity, and heat capacity is ludicrous, and demonstrably so.

It is effectively wrapped up, but that is not to say that there aren't still people who work on improving quality of data.
Exactly.