Global Cooling

[can't sit still]

The scientific consensus is not always right, but it is remarkable how frequently those who do not respect it are wrong.

Let me guess, you're quoting Pope Gregory XV. He was the guy who had to set Copernicus straight.
Why don't you supply a list of people who have proved Nikola Tesla to be wrong. Fat chance. He was decades ahead of everyone else and impeccably accurate.
There seems to be some problems with various theories about heat escaping from Terra.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa- ... .yahoo.com

[dr.placebo]

The majority opinion in Pope Gregory's time was not scientific consensus, since it was not based on science.

Tesla was frequently right, but also often wrong (see the Wiki article for examples). He was a genius inventor, and had an advanced understanding of electricity, but I rather doubt that he knew much about climate science (the field essentially did not exist).

As for the new satellite data, the cited Forbes article is written by a climate change denier (James Taylor of the Heartland Institute) and cites work by Roy Spencer, a noted climate contrarian who has been wrong about satellite data before. I will reserve further comment until I see something reliable.

[dr.placebo]

Well, that did not take too long. Various scientists have come out to debunk Roy Spencer's work: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/2 ... ore-282584

It's not the first time that Spencer has been wrong. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/satelli ... sphere.htm.

[Isotopia]

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

Which is just another way of saying..."I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they sound 'truthy' and I don't have to back any of it up with knowledge or fact. In fact, my modus operandi - as you can see from my many posts - is to see how much of my cerebral diarrhea sticks to the wall each time I blow it out my talk hole."

[can't sit still]

"The person who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.” – William Blake
"Svensmark then discovered an extremely tight correlation between recorded levels of cosmic rays and planetary cloud cover as seen in satellite photos."
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=11559

[dr.placebo]

What you cited was basically an ad for a documentary, one that is clearly trying to make a case for a conspiracy against Svensmark. Why should we give it any credence? Who funded it? If I had an article referenced on the Red Ice Creations site that I would be profoundly embarrassed.

What's your opinion about the Svensmark result? If you are going to cite something to bolster your case, then state your position and at least try to make a logical argument about why the result is germane.

It is fair to say that cosmic rays can influence cloud formation. Cloud chambers work, and are some of the earliest technology to measure radiation. But it is not so wise to claim that cosmic rays have a dominant effect, since the data contradicts this claim. In particular, since 1991 cloud anomalies do not have a good correlation with cosmic rays. The record since 1991 shows that cosmic ray flux actually lags the cloud anomalies, yet no sane person is seriously claiming that clouds cause cosmic rays.

For a more complete argument against the Svensmark hypothesis, see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic- ... vanced.htm

[can't sit still]

Seems that CERN did work years ago but, it was too political to release the results. FUCK politics. I just want to see the truth.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 ... w-settled/

[Isotopia]

I just want to see the truth.

You might start with placing your head between your legs the next time you take your daily constitutional.

Ideally while sitting on a toilet.

Now then, look at the shite coming out from between your butt cheeks and try to envision it as everything you've ever posted here.

Therein lies your truth. The septic, ill-informed, diarrheaic blather that so many of us here have to slog through reading your wretchedly bankrupt, bullshit ideas masquerading as informed opinion.

Again I'll say it: it's gotta suck to be you.

[can't sit still]

My mistake, I thought there was an intelligent reply here. Nope, it's only Iso with his sphincter connected to his keyboard.

[Simon of the Playa]

i'm afraid the tally is in, and your sphincter, CSS, has been voted the smelliest.

[dr.placebo]

For a saner discussion of the CERN results, see this link. In summary, the results are interesting, a bit surprising in some cases, but not proof of the cosmic ray hypothesis. Also, it seems clear that a lot more work needs to be done to match the CERN experiments with the actual atmosphere chemistry.

[Isotopia]

Hey Doc, there's a class coming up here where I work. You may be interested, but I suspect after all of your magnificent posts that it'll be a moot point.

Anyway: https://continuingstudies.stanford.edu/ ... 111_SCI+40

[can't sit still]

DR. , excellent paper. The gist of the paper is: FAR too many uncertainties to be sure of anything. I think that the CERN paper was premature considering the lack of knowledge on the NOX and H2SO4. Pintaubo, et al showed that H2SO4 is always present. The lack of ammonia seems like a big oversight also.
The "comments" has a lot of interesting speculation. One in particular stood out.
"Bandpass filtering the cloud and CR data (passband 1.55–1.81 years) shows that the cloud thickness responds in phase with the CR flux."http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 1.abstract

Some of the commenters were unaware that Solar flux is not the same as cosmic rays.
The modeling also seemed very weak in that they limited altitude and temperature parameters by way too much. This is also very tenuous when trying to connect albedo and forcing.
We'll just have to continue to debate this until hell freezes over,,,,,, or boils over.
I want to see an analysis / model that includes the pollutants from the chemtrails;
http://www.rense.com/general82/chemm.htm
Here's the patents;
http://www.rense.com/general2/pat.htm

[can't sit still]

Here's another one of those "deniers". How can someone with his qualifications possibly contest against the great Al Gore?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... otest.html

[theCryptofishist]

How can ... possibly contest against the great Al Gore?

Oh the melodrama!

(I didn't know strawmen could do that.)

[dr.placebo]

1. Being a Nobel Laureate means less than one might think. Al Gore is also a Nobel Laureate.

2. It's hard to say whether the Telegraph screwed up the reporting, or whether Prof. Giaever is ignorant of climate science. The article brushes off a mountain of data with some vague questioning of temperature measurements. We don't just have an increasing atmospheric temperature, we have changes in biological systems, ocean acidification, a solar radiation imbalance (more energy comes in the top of the atmosphere than leaves it), a rapid increase in CO2, record low ice in the Arctic, more rapid warming at night than in the day, and quite a variety of other data consistent with anthropogenic climate change.

It is all very well to be a skeptic. I encourage it in myself and others. But with that skepticism comes a responsibility: you should propose alternative physical explanations of the evidence. There is no hint that Prof. Giaever has proposed his own climate theories or subjected them to informed criticism.

[can't sit still]

1. Being a Nobel Laureate means less than one might think. .

Dr, are you implying that perhaps Obummers Nobel peace prize was undeserved? If you have any doubts, just ask the people in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Palestine, Egypt, Afghanistan,, Libya, Syria, Saudi, etc.

[dr.placebo]

[OT] The Nobel Peace Prize is often given where it is not fully deserved. On the other hand, Bush and Chaney (and probably Blair) really ought to be tried as war criminals.

On a more germane topic, the Arctic melt goes on, with a record low volume in 2011. I guess the predictions of cooling will have to wait for next year.

[Isotopia]

Hey Doc,

Just finished up this paper The Columbian Encounter and the Little Ice Age: Abrupt Land Use Change, Fire, and Greenhouse Forcing

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... #tabModule

The authors suggest that the Little Ice Age (1550 AD and 1850 AD) was not caused by cyclical lows in solar radiation but rather by the decimation of ~95% of the indigenous populations by introduced diseases after Columbus discovered hi,self in America.

A pretty compelling read.

[dr.placebo]

Thanks for a very interesting cite, Iso. I'd follow it up with a speculation that if the authors are correct then a contributor to the recovery from the Little Ice Age was the clearing of land in the Americas by the European settlers. Also, if the authors are correct, the "natural variability" meme has been damaged somewhat.

[dr.placebo]

Tamino's blog has an illuminating entry today about the recent minima in Arctic sea ice for 2011. Arctic sea ice extent (the area with at least 15% ice coverage) was generally judged to be second lowest in the historical record by NSIDC and JAXA, although the Univ. of Bremen measurements claim a new minimum extent (barely). Arctic sea ice area was claimed to reach a new minimum by Cryosphere Today. PIOMAS claims a new ice volume minimum. In other words, either at or very near a new minimum over several ice measures from several sources.

The important part is not really whether or not new records were set or barely avoided, but how well the numbers line up with the ongoing trends. Using a simple quadratic model fit to the last 30 years of ice extent data, Tamino gives the following graph for ice extent average for the month of September since 1980 (sorry for the large size):



The measured values for 2010 and 2011 were both close to the trend line. While the next few years may or may not lie on the line, the fact that the quadratic trend shows such a good fit (much better than linear) to the data suggests that we are losing ice extent faster than 1 million km^2 per decade. Without going into details here, the ice volume loss has a similar story to tell. The ice loss is significantly faster than predicted by the IPCC 2007 report. This is not good environmental news, folks.

[can't sit still]

Dr. , excellent info. Whether or not there should be an "A" in AGW is still debatable. I trust that you are on high ground in Santa Cruz?

[Simon of the Playa]

he is always on high ground, someplace you have never occupied morally or intellectually.



on a side note, missed you at the Meet n Greet...


Oh Wait...you didn't attend burning man....thats right....you dont go, you just spew on the boards.

[dr.placebo]

Here's a little list of assertions about AGW:

• - CO2 has a greenhouse effect, which causes incoming solar energy to be retained
  - CO2 levels are increasing, and are at the highest CO2 levels for thousands of years
  - increased CO2 is largely caused by human activity
  - the observed global warming is largely caused by increased CO2 levels

Which of these are in dispute? Remember, there is a lot of data behind all of the above statements, and I will cite my sources and ask you to cite yours.

[can't sit still]

Dr, you go on and on like your 4 items are carved in stone. They are not.

"And it coincides with research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.
Britain is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades
The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, "
Obviously, this sounds pretty premature
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276516

"Atmospheric physics professor of the Imperial College London, however, believes global warming will win over any cooling effect.
“Global warming could override any cooling effect on the Earth’s climate,” said Joanna Haigh."
Listen to her. Nothing but uncertainty.
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/new-litt ... -underway/

You are so certain of your conclusions. I'm not convinced of either argument. I'm not at ALL convinced of your claims. There are dozens of inputs and mechanisms that are unknown and/or ignored. You didn't even have any awareness of the "electric universe" theory that is quashing current cosmology.
Our basic understanding of the solar mechanism is completely incorrect. How could we possibly quantify solar irradiance?

[dr.placebo]

They are not carved in stone. They are best guesses based on the available data. That's the way science works.

Where is the contrary data? Not, I think, in the British popular press.

As for the "electric universe" theory, I've yet to see anything coherent on it.

I want data, and I want math.

[can't sit still]

"As for the "electric universe" theory, I've yet to see anything coherent on it."
I believe you. That's part of the reason that you're so uninformed.

[dr.placebo]

Interesting video clip about comparing recent against historic photos of Himalayan glaciers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15216875

[Isotopia]

Dr, you go on and on like your 4 items are carved in stone. They are not.

And your own posting history insures the rest of us readers that you're not competent nor informed enough to make that assertation.

[can't sit still]

Dr, your linked site is GREAT. Bearshears off-handedly mentions that he's been on 13 Everest expeditions. There is no doubt that the glaciers on that side of the Himlayas are shrinking. I was there briefly on a camping tour from London to Kathmandu. It has long been know what the effect would be on the people who depend on the Indus and Ganges. 1.2 billion in India and 182 million in Pakistan.
"In the Ganga river only, the loss of glacier melt water would reduce July-September flows by two thirds, causing water shortage for 500 million people"
http://www.wwfnepal.org/our_solutions/p ... tID=NP0898
Coastal flooding won't be a problem for them.