Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substan


ExpandMyMind

Recommended Posts

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Doug1029

    7

  • Michelle

    5

  • Karlis

    1

  • ExpandMyMind

    1

Climate models need to be revised. But then, climate models always need to be revised. That's what climate modelers do.

As the science progresses, the models get better. What we have now is a vast improvment over what we had just ten years ago. What we'll have in another ten years should be good enough to allow specific forecasts for local areas. Then we can do some planning based on science and not on guesswork.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This article ties in with the OP, and as the commentator here states:

"... the CLOUD experiment was one the politically correct scientific establishment never wanted to happen in the first place:"

The article starts with the following:

As the coldest summer in Britain for 18 years draws to a close, a new study by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has again pointed to the conclusion that the Sun's cosmic rays, and their role in cloud formation, rather than man-made emissions, are responsible for the Earth's changing temperatures. Climate realist and author Lawrence Solomon explains the results of CERN's groundbreaking CLOUD experiment: ... (snip).

Source

Edited by Karlis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article ties in with the OP, and as the commentator here states:

"... the CLOUD experiment was one the politically correct scientific establishment never wanted to happen in the first place:"

The article starts with the following:

As the coldest summer in Britain for 18 years draws to a close, a new study by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has again pointed to the conclusion that the Sun's cosmic rays, and their role in cloud formation, rather than man-made emissions, are responsible for the Earth's changing temperatures. Climate realist and author Lawrence Solomon explains the results of CERN's groundbreaking CLOUD experiment: ... (snip).

Source

as a point of pedantry, the article should say "it is the Sun's modulation of cosmic rays" rather than "the Sun's cosmic rays".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a point of pedantry, the article should say "it is the Sun's modulation of cosmic rays" rather than "the Sun's cosmic rays".

So, if this article is correct, we should now be seeing a decline in temperatures. Yet 2011 is on track to being the third hottest year ever.

One thing about it: in three or four years we'll know whether they were right. But by then, we will be that much deeper in trouble if they're wrong.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article ties in with the OP, and as the commentator here states:

"... the CLOUD experiment was one the politically correct scientific establishment never wanted to happen in the first place:"

The article starts with the following:

As the coldest summer in Britain for 18 years draws to a close, a new study by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has again pointed to the conclusion that the Sun's cosmic rays, and their role in cloud formation, rather than man-made emissions, are responsible for the Earth's changing temperatures. Climate realist and author Lawrence Solomon explains the results of CERN's groundbreaking CLOUD experiment: ... (snip).

Source

In what is clearly a heavily contra - biased article to AGW the one telling statement from CERN is this:

I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

In other words - present the raw data without making claims on what they represent. Make the data freely available and let other people determine what they mean without "tainting" it with any other hypothesised claims.

Sounds entirely reasonable to me, and without the supposed guile thrown at the world's leading investigative institution for particle research....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if this article is correct, we should now be seeing a decline in temperatures. Yet 2011 is on track to being the third hottest year ever.

One thing about it: in three or four years we'll know whether they were right. But by then, we will be that much deeper in trouble if they're wrong.

Doug

Wickian, on 15 September 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

In 1990 we were told we had less than 10 years until a tipping point was reached, they were wrong.

In 2000 we were told we had less than 10 years until a tipping point was reached, they were wrong.

As far as I know, every long-term prediction about AGW has been wrong or vastly overestimated(which is essentially wrong). How does this help to build a consensus?

You replied with this:

Who told you this?

I am not aware of a single professional article that sets a specific date. There are some that say "(Fill in event) COULD happen by (fill in date)," but none that actually come right out with a prediction.

There are lots of amateur articles out there that set specific dates. Don't put much stock in those, as journalists make poor scientists (AL Gore, are you listening?).

Another question: exactly which tipping point are you talking about? The only foreseeable one is the melt-off of the Arctic Ocean and that is predicted for the 2030s. Even then, climatic effects may take a few years to show up.

There's always the possibility that something heretofore unknown will blindside us, but that is, by definition, a disaster and unpredictable.

Doug

Now you are making a prediction like the ones you don't take stock in. ;)

Even if a general consensus was met today, by everyoone in the world, that man is causing global warming, there is absolutely no way we could reverse it in the years that have been predicted we would need to...and not avoid catastrophic results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are making a prediction like the ones you don't take stock in. ;)

Even if a general consensus was met today, by everyoone in the world, that man is causing global warming, there is absolutely no way we could reverse it in the years that have been predicted we would need to...and not avoid catastrophic results.

I'm not predicting what climate will be doing in three or four years. Only saying that we should have enough data by then to tell.

And you're right about us not being able to do much. As it stands now, we cannot stop the meltoff of the Arctic Ocean and whatever climatic consequences that has. All we can do is go along for the ride.

What we CAN do something about is the SECOND half of this century. That's still far enough away for a little remedial action now to have some results.

I ran across an ad for a solar-powered home electrical system. $2000 and you can completely cut yourself off from the grid. Put it on your credit card and use the savings to pay it off. I figure that will take about three years in my case. I'll try to find the ad and post it on UM.

I think THAT is the wave of the future. Small-scale projects that save money on energy and only incidently have a beneficial environmental effect.

To eco-whining skeptics who think conversion is going to cost a fortune: If this works, $2000 will pay all your electrical bills for the rest of your life. You can stick it to the man and dodge "global warming" taxes on electricity at the same time. But, if you don't "believe in global warming" you don't have to convert; just keep buying the expensive stuff - and whining about how much it costs.

Found the address: http://www.mysolarbackup.com

I think a lot of the conversion process will happen without most people realizing it's happening.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would dearly love to do that! Sadly, it's not an option for us. We live on the side of a mountain, in a heavily wooded area that gets very little sun. It saves us a lot in the summer, but winters are a bear. It's a 110+ year old house that we won't be moving from because it's my husband's family home...his grandparents built it. We are as conservative as we can be and the next option for us to to build a cistern.

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would dearly love to do that! Sadly, it's not an option for us. We live on the side of a mountain, in a heavily wooded area that gets very little sun. It saves us a lot in the summer, but winters are a bear. It's a 110+ year old house that we won't be moving from because it's my husband's family home...his grandparents built it. We are as conservative as we can be and the next option for us to to build a cistern.

Is the roof of the house shaded? Do you have a yard?

Most forests have canopy gaps. In the U.S., about one quarter of our forested area isn't growing trees. There should be someplace where you can put it, but you may have to run wires.

And trees moderate temperatures, reducing heating and cooling, so you won't want to take out many (any?) that are close to the house. Might present a challenge.

I was born in a Western Reserve farmhouse. Built about 1830, I think. It had a cistern. Not really big enough for a family so Dad enlarged it, then had to put gutters on the barn to get enough water to fill it. Once in awhile we would still run out and have to have water hauled in.

Anyway, good luck. Hope it works out for you.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the roof of the house shaded? Do you have a yard?

Most forests have canopy gaps. In the U.S., about one quarter of our forested area isn't growing trees. There should be someplace where you can put it, but you may have to run wires.

And trees moderate temperatures, reducing heating and cooling, so you won't want to take out many (any?) that are close to the house. Might present a challenge.

I was born in a Western Reserve farmhouse. Built about 1830, I think. It had a cistern. Not really big enough for a family so Dad enlarged it, then had to put gutters on the barn to get enough water to fill it. Once in awhile we would still run out and have to have water hauled in.

Anyway, good luck. Hope it works out for you.

Doug

We have very little yard and some of the oldest Magnolia trees, in this historic area, shading the house. A few of them are estimated to be over 200 years old. That is one of the challenges we have in putting in a cistern. It's going to be extemely difficult to find a place to dig one and not put the trees in danger. Where we don't have trees we have boulders that are larger than the house...and it's not a small house.

And, of course, we have to deal with the Historical Society. :rolleyes: I wish we could do a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have very little yard and some of the oldest Magnolia trees, in this historic area, shading the house. A few of them are estimated to be over 200 years old. That is one of the challenges we have in putting in a cistern. It's going to be extemely difficult to find a place to dig one and not put the trees in danger. Where we don't have trees we have boulders that are larger than the house...and it's not a small house.

And, of course, we have to deal with the Historical Society. :rolleyes: I wish we could do a lot more.

Southeast somewhere? Maybe if you could just make it LOOK old...

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Southeast somewhere? Maybe if you could just make it LOOK old...

Doug

Or we could make it look like another huge boulder in the yard. Hey...that's a thought!

But seriously, they have our yard mapped out and we can't do anything outside without them interfering. We call them the Hysterical Society. It's a huge pain in the butt.

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Post 16 of the "Health" thread for more comments. The system is underpowered for what most people would want.

Doug

Yes it is, but thank you for the link. I wouldn't mind having an entire thread with information on new energy saving products and opinions or links to opinions from people that have actually used them.

After the tornado we had in April, and the streets were blocked with debris, we could have set in up in the middle of the road. :P We have a large generator, because we have a mobile welding service, but in consideration for the neighbors we didn't run it at night. After four weeks without power, using it as sparingly as possible, it had driven me quite batty from the noise level. I would have relished being able to use something like that, as a back-up for our back-up, even for a short time.

It could be pretty handy on a camping trip or on the boat, too.

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Found the address: http://www.mysolarbackup.com

I thought you guys might appreciate an update, now that mine has been running for a couple weeks. The system can run the house while the sun is shining and for about two hours after the sun goes down. An overcast day gives it a problem. This system is under-powered for anyone who wants to go totally free of the grid.

BUT: the very same company makes a more-powerful model. You can take a look at it at: http://powerstationflex.com

It's a bit on the expensive side: $19,997 AFTER the tax rebate. It would take me over thirteen years to amortize the cost.

There will likely be better and cheaper models coming out in a few years. It would pay to be patient.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.