• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I have no idea about this source so if they are nut jobs please say so.

Thought the article was interesting and relevant to the ongoing GW debate.

If the information is true though then it certainly justifies the skepticism that exists in those of us against MMGW.

There is just too much that we don't know for us to really make a determination as to how we are or aren't effecting the earth's climate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD's lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss's warning.

"Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere."

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

"We've found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

The team used the Proton Synchotron accelerator (pictured here with Kirkby) to examine the nucleation using combinations of trace gasses at various temperatures, with precision. These first results confirm that cosmic rays increase the formation of cloud-nuclei by a factor of 10 in the troposphere, but additional trace gasses are needed nearer the surface.

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

"t 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 [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."

More from CERN here, and a video here.®

BTW CERN is a pretty tough organization to question when it comes to motivation and such aka this isn't a study paid for by the oil companies.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
ProJo, what is your scientific explanation for what happens to all the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere every year?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
zomg scientists repeating what i say every fucking time someone brings up MMGW/ACC
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
ProJo, what is your scientific explanation for what happens to all the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere every year?

Infohawk, seriously? That it's one small data point in an ocean we've barely started charting.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Yes, seriously. How is it a small datapoint?

Because our contribution isn't out of the normal? CO2 concentrations have varied greatly throughout the Earth's history as far as we can tell, bitching about it varying again due to NATURAL MEANS, yes what we do is NATURAL, we're simply converting energy blah blah. CO2 lols idiots fighting windmills. The Earth is but a marble in our solar system, smaller than an atom in comparison with our galaxy and nearly non-existent compared to our universe. There are so many things we don't understand about all that shit, which I tend to believe has a rather large effect on our climate.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Because our contribution isn't out of the normal? CO2 concentrations have varied greatly throughout the Earth's history as far as we can tell

And temperature has varied greatly too. That's the point. If we're triggering those kinds of temperature changes now we're in trouble.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
And temperature has varied greatly too. That's the point. If we're triggering those kinds of temperature changes now we're in trouble.

and we have no way of knowing that because there are far to many data points we don't know about which influence our weather. this has been my argument since day one. it isn't that climate change isn't occurring, it's that we don't know enough about what influences our climate and we are constantly making new discoveries towards this. it's an infantile science anyone saying they KNOW is bullshitting, point to the predictions that have been right. none have. we need to stop making claims that we KNOW things and we need to stop harming ourselves because we don't completely understand them. CO2 emissions aren't that big of a deal. Highest point of biodiversity on the planet, or so some claim, happen to be times of high CO2 concentrations.

Infohawk, I think people have been overly religious because they have the logical fallacy in their mind of "saving the Earth". People need to stop viewing the Earth as our eternal home and start viewing it like a mother bird and her nest. She gave us life, she gives us her resources and we need to use these resources to propagate Earth life throughout our Universe. imo all you climate preachers are thinking far to small.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
ProJo, what is your scientific explanation for what happens to all the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere every year?
I don't know. My job isn't to figure that out.

I am just reporting what real scientists are saying.

Clouds are one of the biggest factors in GW and if our understanding of cloud formation is wrong then all the models will be wrong and will have to change and that could result in significant changes to current ideas about the future of world climate.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
it's an infantile science anyone saying they KNOW is bullshitting, point to the predictions that have been right. none have. we need to stop making claims that we KNOW things and we need to stop harming ourselves because we don't completely understand them. CO2 emissions aren't that big of a deal. Highest point of biodiversity on the planet, or so some claim, happen to be times of high CO2 concentrations.

You're kind of all over the place so I will focus on a few things. It's odd that you're saying we can't know and then you feel comfortable saying CO2 isn't a big deal. How would you know that? You also confuse the fact that the Earth has always been changing with the fact that man is changing it rapidly. The acceleration of change is the issue. Of course there have been ice ages and more diverse warmer ages. We want that to happen on a geological timescale not over the course of centuries.

Let me ask you this: what would have to happen to tempatures / habitats / sea levels for you to believe that we should be concerned about the environment?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Let me ask you this: what would have to happen to tempatures / habitats / sea levels for you to believe that we should be concerned about the environment?
Something out side of historical norms?

The earth HAS been warmer in the past.
Sea levels have been higher too I would guess.

One major volcano could do more damage to the environment than anything we have done in the last 100 years.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Something out side of historical norms?

The earth HAS been warmer in the past.
Sea levels have been higher too I would guess.

One major volcano could do more damage to the environment than anything we have done in the last 100 years.

What historical range are you looking at? At one time the Earth was molten rock with no atmosphere. We already know there are ice ages every so many thousands of years. I think it makes more sense to look at the rate of change and that's what many scientists are looking at. If the rate of change is dramatically different than historically, it seems likely we are causing climate change.

Anyway, it just seems like common sense to me that if you release a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere it's going to have an effect on the world, whether it be through temperature or something else. Unless plant life was increasing because of that but it doesn't seem like biomass is really increasing.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Something out side of historical norms?

The earth HAS been warmer in the past.
Sea levels have been higher too I would guess.

One major volcano could do more damage to the environment than anything we have done in the last 100 years.

I love how you make shit up off the top of your head.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,864
31,359
146
Infohawk, seriously? That it's one small data point in an ocean we've barely started charting.

funny how you mention oceans.

because, what we very much do know, is that oceans do not respond very well to CO2 pumping. acidification of the earth's ocean, is, quite possibly irreversible.

such mitigation takes decades to centuries to develop.

the deniers will continue to choose the dumbest option out there: do nothing because we can't know right now.

idiots.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Heard of the Medieval Warm Period?

A 300 year period that was warmer than the era before or after it, although it may have been cooler than today.

Something causes the temperature to spike and it certainly wasn't greenhouse gasses from cars and coal plants.

As for historical temperatures: we are still in an ice age by technical definition.
The earth has been warmer in the past than it is today.
EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Let me explain it to you projo, of course the climate models need to be revised, they simply do not explain why we get more global warming at the poles and not at the equator.
Nor is it simply only about carbon, there are all kinds of complex interactions between various factors, not predicted by any factor alone.

But the evidence is now overwhelming, MMGW is occurring on a global scale. Of that there is no doubt. Just because we don't yet understand exactly how all the factors interact, does nothing to justify MMGW deniers, who quite frankly are full of shit.

MMGW deniers predict even less, so where is the validity of the argument of MMGW deniers who say, if you can't predict everything you are operating on a false premise.

And its a one way street, unless MMGW advocates can predict everything, MMGW deniers are not subject to the same test of making valid predictions. As even over the same 800,000 time scale, we have MMGW effects unprecedented over that time frame. Effects not ever seen in the same time frame. And if that is not enough ProJO, we can extend geological records back to at least the 5 million year before our times with similar results.

Tell us again Projo, all about how this is just our imagination, and MMGW does not exist.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
funny how you mention oceans.

because, what we very much do know, is that oceans do not respond very well to CO2 pumping. acidification of the earth's ocean, is, quite possibly irreversible.

such mitigation takes decades to centuries to develop.

the deniers will continue to choose the dumbest option out there: do nothing because we can't know right now.

idiots.
we can't know right now, so what if we make sweeping changes to how we live and it turns out we were fucking wrong and stifled human development for years? please i understand the ocean acidity stuff and? no projection/model has gotten anything right so far, not even that unless you want to prove me otherwise? ps CO2 levels were higher in the past, meaning ocean acidity levels were too probably higher in the past, guess what we had MORE BIO DIVERSITY THEN. jesus christ, you call ME the idiot and you're the one falling head over heels for an infantile science.

LL how can you say MMGW is real when something like this demands ALL projections/models be redone? lols that's fucking stupid.

Santa Claus is real because my dad told me he dressed up and played him on Christmas! moron!
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,864
31,359
146
we can't know right now, so what if we make sweeping changes to how we live and it turns out we were fucking wrong and stifled human development for years? please i understand the ocean acidity stuff and? no projection/model has gotten anything right so far, not even that unless you want to prove me otherwise? ps CO2 levels were higher in the past, meaning ocean acidity levels were too probably higher in the past, guess what we had MORE BIO DIVERSITY THEN. jesus christ, you call ME the idiot and you're the one falling head over heels for an infantile science.

LL how can you say MMGW is real when something like this demands ALL projections/models be redone? lols that's fucking stupid.

Santa Claus is real because my dad told me he dressed up and played him on Christmas! moron!

something tells me you're not a golfer.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
something tells me you're not a golfer.

are you saying if i was a golfer i'd appreciate the climate change more? zinfamous, it reached 80f today and people bitched about how hot it was, i heard a girl at work comparing it to the 114 they were rocking in Arizona where she just got back from. people tend to blow weather way way way out of proportion. "OMG IT WAS HOTTER THIS SUMMER" no it wasn't dumbfucks, we haven't had a hot summer in Southern California for a couple goddamn years.

i have NEVER denied climate change, i have simply questioned mans involvement in it. do i believe we have some effect? yes, but i also believe it's minor and there are other things outside of our current understanding which contribute far greater. and ZOMG scientists might actually agree with me! I mean they're saying EVERYTHING needs to be redone and you guys are using the things these fucks are saying needs to be redone, to prove you are right.

Like I said, I know Santa Claus exists because my dad told me he dressed up like him once.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,805
10,100
136
ProJo, what is your scientific explanation for what happens to all the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere every year?

The alarmist explanation for what happens is fail.

We're in the atmosphere of a planet, not a glass box, it has carbon sinks. Specifically the ocean and plant life. CO2 is a non issue, it has been higher in the thousands PPM before, and it's a required part of life.

It has never been stable, and it never will be. Both CO2 and Temp will change independent of mankind. Ice core charts show that CO2 follows temperature change. The inverse of the entire argument.

Past 40 years we've seen step increases in temperature correlating with ESNO. This is no constant rise as a result of forcing. There has been no rise in the past 15 years.

Here's some more thoughts on how accelerated the warming really isn't.

Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum

What Future Observation Will Disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming?


In the next two decades, if the GMT swings from its current peak towards its neutral position and then reaches the lower GMT boundary line to a value of about +0.13 deg C in the 2030s as shown in Figure 3, the whole world will agree with the late Professor Harold Lewis’s characterization of anthropogenic global warming:
“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”