Invest In Turning Deserts Green As Alternative Response To Climate Cha

[arfink]

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth's surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.
[i]“It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,”[/i] said Kirkby. [i]“Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.”[/i]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1328648892' post='2383181']
So you dislike Svensmark's solar activity research? I went around looking for peer-reviewed papers which sought to disprove his theory, and most of them simply conclude as you seem to agree they should: the sun's energy fluctuations are not enough to influence earth's temperature directly.

But the theory isn't that the sun getting hotter and is thus warming earth. The theory is that the sun's electromagnetic field fluctuation will change the level of cosmic ray bombardment we receive, and that this ionization is driving the formation of aerosols that produce clouds. Svensmark's theory suggests that a large amount of data is being neglected in climate research. Clouds play an extremely pivotal role in the regulation of earth's temperature, but the link between cloud formation and cosmic rays (and thusly solar activity) is not being given enough thought.

EDIT: This paper seeks to disprove the Svensmark theory:

[url="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3609820P"]http://adsabs.harvar...GeoRL..3609820P[/url]

Svensmark has objected that their modeling is inaccurate, and has been conducting empirical testing with a cloud chamber at CERN. His results have not yet been fully published.

[url="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/update-on-the-cern-cloud-experiment/"]http://wattsupwithth...oud-experiment/[/url]

EDIT2: still haven't been able to find the results of Svensmark's experiments at CERN, though anecdotal references online seem to suggest it has been supressed.
[/quote]
Short reply: I think Svensmark's ideas on that are interesting and have been floated around for a while now, but everything that I've seen suggests that the cosmic ray induced cloud feedback is a fine tuning nob at best. There is a lot of research related to that and it doesn't add up to a branch revision of the science of climate change. P.S. I consider Anthony Watts' blog to be a pretty awful place to get information about climate science. I seriously recommend checking out the stuff I linked before. Peace.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1328649663' post='2383188']
The CERN CLOUD project:
[url="http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html"]http://press.web.cer...1/PR15.11E.html[/url]
[/quote]
Below are some resources that have informed my understanding of the cosmic ray thing, which is erroneously hyped up by the denier crowd. Again, I think it is worth funding the research and it is interesting, but clearly it is not the paradigm shift some would wish it to be.

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/"]http://www.realclima...ial-mechanisms/[/url]

[url="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001/pdf/erl8_2_024001.pdf"]http://iopscience.io...l8_2_024001.pdf[/url]

[url="http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.4294"]http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.4294[/url]

[url="http://atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf"]http://atmos-chem-ph...8-7373-2008.pdf[/url]

[url="http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/si/links/2011GL049764.pdf"]http://www.agu.org/p...011GL049764.pdf[/url]

[url="http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1885/2010/acp-10-1885-2010.html"]http://www.atmos-che...-1885-2010.html[/url]

From 2009
[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/aerosol-effects-and-climate-part-ii-the-role-of-nucleation-and-cosmic-rays/"]http://www.realclima...nd-cosmic-rays/[/url]

Edited February 7, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1328649551' post='2383187']
If Svensmark retracts his claims or has them disproved by something other than a computer simulation (which he and others have claimed is flawed) then my last objection to the "greenhouse forcing" theory will be quashed, and I'd be content.
[/quote]
Why base so much on the work of one scientist? What makes this fellow so important and authoritative? Let the science play out in the legitimate scientific community - that's my philosophy. Good for him for exploring these ideas and, along with many other scientists, enriching our understanding of these phenomena. Insofar as this is done according to the rules and values of science it is a good thing. One would be in a better place to assess the import of this forcing by first acquiring a well-rounded understanding of contemporary climate science (something I strive to do). I say this because you don't seem to be aware of the substantial evidence for the role of CO2 and the attribution of anthropogenic forcings, et cetera, which is much more extensive evidence backed by corroborated empirical evidence and confirmed predictions. I've not read it, but [url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm"]John Cook's article[/url] on the topic may prove thought-provoking (the guy cites his sources better than most and you can sometimes get decent interaction in the comments).

Edited February 7, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

P.S. There was a presentation at the last AGU meeting explaining CLOUD and the current state and implications of that research (which isn't much for the science of climate change in spite of the claims of the contrarian blogosphere). I'll try to find that presentation... In the meantime I would very much recommend this excellent presentation by Dr. Richard Alley from a couple meetings back.

[url="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml"]http://www.agu.org/m...deos/A23A.shtml[/url]

ETA: Here's the paper from the CLOUD project which was discussed at the AGU meeting: [url="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html"]Kirby, et al., [i]Role of Sulphuric Acid...[/i][/url]; an important related paper: [url="http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4001/2011/acp-11-4001-2011.pdf"]Snow-Kropla, et al., [i]Cosmic rays, aerosol formation[/i]...[/url]; and some [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/"]comments[/url] from Schmidt, and [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/"]comments[/url] from Pierce.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[4588686]

It's an interesting game. It's like the neutrino experiments. We have a massive body of data about climate change. But wait. What? There is a chance that some experiments in particle physics may show some shortcomings in our modern understanding of causality? Huh. Well although we all know that science is basically bull poo and merely a facade for the statist thugs who want to emasculate America through policies that will encourage driving electric cars (something only kitty cats and Europeans do) if there is even the tiniest potential crack in the current epistemology we should take that as Gospel truth and throw out all the good data about climate change on the assumption that our revised understanding of causality will basically demonstrate that all that data regarding climate change was really the misunderstood outcome of a flawed scientific paradigm.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328659076' post='2383269']
It's an interesting game. It's like the neutrino experiments. We have a massive body of data about climate change. But wait. What? There is a chance that some experiments in particle physics may show some shortcomings in our modern understanding of causality? Huh. Well although we all know that science is basically bull poo and merely a facade for the statist thugs who want to emasculate America through policies that will encourage driving electric cars (something only kitty cats and Europeans do) if there is even the tiniest potential crack in the current epistemology we should take that as Gospel truth and throw out all the good data about climate change on the assumption that our revised understanding of causality will basically demonstrate that all that data regarding climate change was really the misunderstood outcome of a flawed scientific paradigm.
[/quote]
It isn't really like the OPERA neutrino experiment imo. That was an anomalous measurement which needs independent replication, and which, if confirmed, will open up new prospects for theoretical physics. CLOUD was preceded by a specific hypothesis and does not have comparable implications. In my estimation (fwiw), that line of research has often been grossly misrepresented on the internet. I think we might get some fine tuning of the climate models, and some new understanding into cloud formation, but there is not some groundbreaking theory that overturns the so-called consensus view on climate change. That's definitely the sense I have from the reading I've done (mostly peer-reviewed stuff but also a bit of the notorious blogosphere) and the AGU presentations that I alluded to. Hopefully those with genuine curiosity will make use of the resources above. And readers should note that the actual nature of the consensus view, and the scientific basis behind it, has not been presented here. There needs to be a rule that anyone presumptuous enough to pontificate about climate science on the internet should have at least the courtesy to read the IPCC docs. Anyway, I'm probably rambling...

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328659076' post='2383269']
It's an interesting game. It's like the neutrino experiments. We have a massive body of data about climate change. But wait. What? There is a chance that some experiments in particle physics may show some shortcomings in our modern understanding of causality? Huh. Well although we all know that science is basically bull poo and merely a facade for the statist thugs who want to emasculate America through policies that will encourage driving electric cars (something only kitty cats and Europeans do) if there is even the tiniest potential crack in the current epistemology we should take that as Gospel truth and throw out all the good data about climate change on the assumption that our revised understanding of causality will basically demonstrate that all that data regarding climate change was really the misunderstood outcome of a flawed scientific paradigm.
[/quote]











see what i did there?

[arfink]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1328656593' post='2383255']
P.S. There was a presentation at the last AGU meeting explaining CLOUD and the current state and implications of that research (which isn't much for the science of climate change in spite of the claims of the contrarian blogosphere). I'll try to find that presentation... In the meantime I would very much recommend this excellent presentation by Dr. Richard Alley from a couple meetings back.

[url="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml"]http://www.agu.org/m...deos/A23A.shtml[/url]

ETA: Here's the paper from the CLOUD project which was discussed at the AGU meeting: [url="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html"]Kirby, et al., [i]Role of Sulphuric Acid...[/i][/url]; an important related paper: [url="http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4001/2011/acp-11-4001-2011.pdf"]Snow-Kropla, et al., [i]Cosmic rays, aerosol formation[/i]...[/url]; and some [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/"]comments[/url] from Schmidt, and [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/"]comments[/url] from Pierce.
[/quote]

Thank you.

Hasan- I understand you like to have arguments. That's nice. I for one would relish the opportunity to buy an electric car, should they become efficient and affordable down the line.

If you really want to "win" here, let me allow you to do that. I obviously haven't researched this as much as LD has. I've obviously only been exposed to one viewpoint here. U Happy Dood?

Edited February 8, 2012 by arfink

[4588686]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1328671291' post='2383456']










see what i did there?
[/quote]

I'm afraid that I don't understand. Could you break it down for me?

[Groo the Wanderer]

[Groo the Wanderer]

[left]The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers - and the proof is finally here[/left]


[url="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalayan-glaciers-have-lost-no-ice-in-past-10-years-new-study-reveals/?intcmp=features"]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalayan-glaciers-have-lost-no-ice-in-past-10-years-new-study-reveals/?intcmp=features[/url]

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalayan-glaciers-have-lost-no-ice-in-past-10-years-new-study-reveals/?intcmp=features"]http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=features[/url]



more eco-hippie carp and lies exposed. will it ever end?

Edited February 10, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1328878952' post='2384804']
[left]The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers - [/quote][/left]
[left]Okay, an erroneous non-peer reviewed projection made its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report section on impacts back in 2007. This was caught by climate scientists after publication and led to some justified criticisms of the IPCC review process. I think it's fair to be critical of that and to demand highest possible standards from the IPCC. I doubt you'll find a climate scientist who disagrees. However, connecting that often over-hyped incident with the GRAIL research is extremely dubious. I find the tactic of trumpeting a minor error [i]ad nauseum[/i] to be intellectually dishonest and destructive of genuine discourse. It does not reflect well on Fox News to play that game, especially when they advertise their product as "fair and balanced." To cherry pick an aspect of GRAIL (namely the Himalayas, which is a small subset of what GRAIL studied) and tie it in which an old and intellectually dishonest talking point is strange indeed. Certainly doesn't do justice to the GRAIL project and their recent paper.[/left]

[left][quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1328878952' post='2384804']and the proof is finally here[/quote][/left]
[left]We had a range of estimates on glacier melt in the Himalayas based on available instrumental data but the uncertainties were high. The GRAIL data reveals a low rate of ice loss for that region, which is interesting. This is just good science being done and an advancement for climate science. To spin it as the rebuttal of a hippie hoax (which I guess is what you're insinuating) is quite bizarre. Here is a visualization of GRAIL data (average change in mass) on my youtube channel.[/left]
[left][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMFf4j6AzGA[/media][/left]

[left]The animation relevant to the Himalaya region starts around 0:50. Blue indicates negative change in mass and red a positive change; white is no significant change. My source was the [url="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003906/"]NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio[/url].[/left]
[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1328878952' post='2384804']
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalayan-glaciers-have-lost-no-ice-in-past-10-years-new-study-reveals/?intcmp=features"]http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=features[/url]
[/quote]
"Himalaya glaciers have lost no ice..." No, there is ice loss in the Himalayas, but not everywhere; according to GRAIL the high Asian mountains have been losing 4 tons of ice annually, on average. This is considerably less than some estimates which were based on low altitude measurements, but this has been part of the point of GRAIL - to get better data on the ice sheets. This is climate science. It isn't a conspiracy of lunatic hippies. The actual paper from Nature is quite good. I resent that it was so shamelessly cherry picked, conflated with the old "glaciergate" talking point, and reduced to a bit of FUD-fodder. [url="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html"]Jacob, et al., Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise[/url]

P.S. Fox lifted the professor John Wahr quotes from the University of Colorado news release and it's interesting to see how they cherry picked his statements. [url="http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/02/08/cu-boulder-study-shows-global-glaciers-ice-caps-shedding-billions-tons-mass"]The news release.[/url] No spin, my arse. (Using the same methods one could just as well have spun GRAIL and the Wahr statements into an alarmist article. This is why I think we should insist that journalistic sources at least pass the basic litmus test of intellectual integrity. Another rant, perhaps.)

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1328878952' post='2384804']more eco-hippie carp and lies exposed. will it ever end?[/quote]
I find derision, ridicule, and aspersions of this kind to be intellectually dishonest and unworthy of a serious reply.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Ice_nine]

I'm voting L_D for prezident

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1328899856' post='2384984']...according to GRAIL the high Asian mountains have been losing 4 tons of ice annually, on average.
[/quote]
Oh geez. That should say 4 [i]billion [/i]tons of ice. Derp! Glaciers outside of of Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at a rate of about 150 billion tons per year. The high Asian mountains only have a 4 billion ton share of that. Greenland and Antarctica, plus peripheral glaciers and caps, amounts to a loss of about 385 billion tons of ice per year, according to GRAIL measurements (see the paper linked above and/or the CU-Boulder news release above). The high Asian mountains result was unexpected because before GRAIL what we had to go on for that region were mostly measurements from lower glaciers, which are losing ice much more rapidly. So is this unexpected aspect of GRAIL big news? No. Damning of climate science? I don't see how. Interesting for scientific reasons? I think so.

Edit: A visual illustration of the GRAIL result might be more helpful than many words. I recommend [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMFf4j6AzGA"]this youtube video[/url] yet again (I just starting keeping a youtube channel and it's kinda fun).

Edited February 10, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum