.........Yesterday, some extremely important new research on climate change was quietly released.... This key research, long in gestation, and embargoed until October 4, appears in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (October 3). Here is the press release:
Do electrons help to make the clouds?' By H. Svensmark, J.O.P. Pedersen, et al. (doi:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773)
"Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists trace the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than atmospheric scientists have predicted. That may explain the link proposed by members of the Danish team, between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change."........
One especially eminent science writer has already declared: "The implications for climate physics, solar-terrestrial physics and terrestrial-galactic physics are pretty gob-smacking....."
I say, watch this space. Slowly, but surely, this revelation could well open a can of wormholes in climate-change science. The reason is simple. The experiment ties in beautifully with the brilliant work of geochemist, Professor Ján Veizer of the Ruhr University at Bochum, Germany, and the University of Ottawa in Canada, and Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who for some time have been implicating cosmic rays and water vapour, rather than carbon dioxide, as the main drivers of climate change. Indeed, they have put down 75% of climate change to these drivers.
Cosmic rays are known to boost cloud formation - and, in turn, reduce temperatures on Earth - by creating ions that cause water droplets to condense. Ján Veizer and Nir Shaviv calculated temperature changes at the Earth's surface by studying oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine fossils. They then compared these with variations in cosmic-ray activity, determined by looking at how cosmic rays have affected iron isotopes in meteorites. Their results suggest that temperature fluctuations over the past 550 million years are more likely to relate to cosmic-ray activity than to CO2. By contrast, they found no correlation between temperature variation and the changing patterns of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But the mechanism remained far from understood.....until now. For it seems that the Danish team may well have discovered that mechanism......
methinks you are attakcing the messenger, not the message.
Stott merely points to the research, published in Wednesday in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A this week, which would seem to support the research you claim was debunked. Perhaps it´s now somewhat debunked?
methinks you are attakcing the messenger, not the message.
Methinks youthinks wrong. I simply asked for the credentials of your chosen blogger in the field of climate change. The fact he doesn't have climate change credentials would prevent me from citing his blog as evidence of anything to do with climate change. You obviously look at this a different way and it is illustrative of your knowledge of the 'scientific method'.
Your climate change fellow cited several scientists as having performed 'brilliant work'. Looking at this with a critical mind, as scientists are trained to do, it didn't take long to find later research which debunked their original 'brilliant' work. It didn't debunk it by saying new evidence has been found to prove the original paper wrong - no, it debunked it by saying the 'brilliant' scientists' had made it all up!
There can be no excuse for that, and there can be no excuse for citing such research as authoritive. That's what your man did, and what you did by posting his blog.
The paper you cited published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A debunks nothing. It demonstrates experimentally a theoretical concept. The interpretation you and your man made was that this is so relevant to atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change that it overturns other theories which have extremely strong experimental evidence to back them up. The paper you cited does no such thing, it debunks nothing.
Climate change is potentially serious stuff and mickey mouse science is the last thing we need. If you want to discuss climate change then you need to cite peer reviewed articles in high impact factor journals. The Nature paper I cited is one such article, you could learn a lot from example and less from google.
Scientific method? Ah, that´ll be what the scientific ethics panel used when they accused Bjorn Lomborg of displaying "scientific dishonesty" - before being forced to withdraw the accusation when the Science Ministry pointed out that they had presented no evidence to support their claims.
This graph from the Greenland Ice cores project would appear to show a repetitive temperature cycling with approximately a 1100 year periodicy, which would fit in nicely with the temperature rise now starting. There is also a problem correlating CO2 rise to temperature rise in the past as to which comes first, which is quite relevant as recent studies show plants exhale more CO2 at higher temperatures
"Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica" Petit J.R. et al. Nature 399, 429 - 436
The research may have fine credentials, but I fail to see how the connection is made between the gas liberated from 420,000 year old ice cores and the composition of the atmosphere at the time the ice formed. After being under hundreds of bars of pressure for several thousand years, any gas content could scarcely resemble the original composition - and interpolation would be mere guesswork without knowing the precise circumstances under which the 'bubbles' formed. Carbon Dioxide is of course, highly soluble in water - liquid or solid...
A major difficulty with all this environmental science lies in determining the correlations. Just because two or more values vary in synchronism doesn't reveal which is the cause and which the effect - and of course, neither may be the cause with both variations being the effects of another unseen cause. The plain fact is that Earth's climate is driven by the Sun and the Sun's radiation output has not been plotted beyond a hundred years or so. Meanwhile, the existence of ionised 'belts' in the outer atmoshere was only discovered mere decades ago.
Ionising radiation concentrated by the earth's magnetic field is responsible for the dramatic Aurora Borealis. The precise effect of such concentration of the radiation on gas ionisation in the upper atmosphere - particularly on the formation or destruction of Ozone - remains a rich field for investigation. Cosmic radiation certainly affects us in many observable ways here on earth, as those of us involved with radio telegraphy know very well. Other less observable effects probaly exist but remain uninvestigated.
The research may have fine credentials, but I fail to see how the connection is made between the gas liberated from 420,000 year old ice cores and the composition of the atmosphere at the time the ice formed
Read the paper.
Weak response ORAC. Bit of a flat earther, aren't you?
Flat earther? No, not really. But I do see a trend of those convinced that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions pursuing vendettas or an almost religious ferocity against those who express scepticism. I note, from other sites, that the authors of the Danish paper are already being attacked on personal, ethical as well as scientific grounds. That may because of his statement that:
"The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork."
Damn. Didn't know you guys cared about real issues. Now you have my attention. I will be back with some input and info after about 10 days. Going on a trip. btw ORAC it is a genuine Q for science. Suggest you limit your attempted humour to things you understand. Like dead poets. Cosmic rays consist mainly of free protons travelling at high velocity , and are influenced by solar magnetism. The NASA website is a good source of info on any scientific Q.
Ye Gods, Slagger. Peer reviewed papers? Here? This is Jet Blast, not some posh university.
And anyways, Mr Orac's much much brainier than anyone else here, and that includes you. If yer don't understand what he's getting at, then better to do what the rest of us do, which is to nod thoughtfully (to cover our mental tracks) and then click on the nearest "Tits 'n' bums" thread where we'll feel less mentally inadequate.
Oo! That reminds me of my old "Tits and bums in art" thread. Must look it up sometime. Added a touch of class to Jet Blast just when it needed it most. Can't be having people think we're a bunch of uncultured twats, can we?
Humour Re-entry? Follow the links in the US Senate Committee report I link to above. It's not a joke title. In fact, the reported aggressive reaction bears an uncanny likeness to the current thread....
Here I am gently chiding you to read the stuff before you post it, and if you are going to post something make it worthwhile, and you dig a deeper hole.
I give an example of something that has authority, like a paper published in Nature, a journal of incredible authority and an impact factor for a general journal which is probably in the top 10 (it might be no 1, I would have to check the data, Science might beat it).
You come back with an article from the Copenhagen Post and the 'Majority Fact of the Day' from the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works. They are the ones who build interstate highways, I wager. The only undisputed fact on that web page is that the Republican party just happen to be the majority on that committee so can publish what they want. That would be the Republican Party, a political party, a partisan group, and hardly well known in the field of science unless they are blocking research in areas that might cure human disease because the research offends their right wing Christian constituency.
You obviously didn't study science to a high level. That's fine, I stopped doing Latin when I was sixteen, and so I don't challenge Davaar when he is doing his nominative/vocative/accusative gerund gerundive stuff. I know to stay well clear because I would make a complete ass of myself. Well I probably still do....
You aint going to discover the secret to climate change on a blog. You seriously think the oil companies and neocons would ignore your Professor if he had anything? They'd be throwing so much money at him to disprove the CO2 theory that he wouldn't be able to spend it.
Oh please, are you saying the magazine Nature is without bias also?
All this climate change stuff is crap... Maybe its happening, maybe its not... The earth is a dynamic place and the dynamic nature is GOOD. You don't want a static system. a static system produces a supremely optimized eco system that is exquisitly fragile. The slightest change then causes a mass extinction.
Is the climate changing? yep... been that way for 4 billion years. Is it bad? Who is to say. Is it REALLY getting warmer? Maybe. might be colder next year too.
This year was supposed to be the worst year of hurricaines on record. Nothing worthwhile happened, turned out to be one of the calmest ever... But watch out... it COULD have been a bad year... better luck next time.
Thank you for the nature article. It was, it would seem, actually a letter to which Shaviv and Veizer provided a response. To quote just the first two sentences.
"I carefully read the letter written by the cosigners and was quite bewildered by it. First, it is strange that they decided to hold a scientific debate by press releases. While I am sure that this debate is of interest to the general public, the nature of the medium allows them to bring forth accusations without actually presenting any supporting evidence. This is hardly a scientific approach, made even worse with general claims, such as "methodically very doubtful".