The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Nia's comments on Svensmark and Lynn's on academic freedom. on 07/05/2010 09:08:37 MDT Print View

This from Nigel Calder, co-author of 'The Chilling Stars' along with Henrik Svensmark:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/

At issue are the Svensmark team’s results on aerosols (see right). These show fine aerosols disappearing from the sky, because the shortage of cosmic rays lessens the chemical production of the clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules that seed the aerosols.

According to the people in Leeds, that can’t be right because they have a computer model that contradicts it.

The GLOMAP model was developed by Ken Carslaw, and the unlucky person named as lead author is a graduate student, Eimear Dunne.

An open letter to the lead author


Dear Eimear,

In any other branch of physics, if a model and observations are at odds, there’s almost certainly something wrong with the model. But you’ve evidently been encouraged to think that doesn’t apply in climate research.

I must admit that you have a dreadful role model in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It keeps shrugging off glaring mismatches between real-world data and the models used to predict man-made global warming.

As for your new association with the CLOUD experiment at CERN, you may not know that the project was conceived as a direct result of a lecture that I gave at CERN in December 1997, reporting Henrik Svensmark’s discovery of the influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover.

But you should also be aware that, although Henrik inspired the project, some people in CLOUD team now try to disparage his research whenever they can.

Why? Because Henrik keeps insisting, in a politically incorrect manner, that the Svensmark effect is important. Crucial, in fact, for understanding past, present and future climate change.

Fainter hearts would like the link between cosmic rays and clouds to be just a technical footnote to the climate debate. Not so trivial, mind you, as to undermine the case for spending public money on CLOUD. But not so significant, either, as to alarm the politically correct funding agencies.

It grieves me, Eimear, that your mentors have launched you into such a difficult balancing act. It’s bound to produce wobbly results.

But in any case I know that you, together with Prof. Carslaw, signed a declaration in December saying, ‘As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.

So you’re not exactly open-minded about the Svensmark hypothesis. You really don’t want to find an important effect of cosmic rays, do you?

Best wishes

Nigel Calder

Nia Schmald
(nschmald) - MLife
Re: Nia's comments on Svensmark and Lynn's on academic freedom. on 07/05/2010 12:07:00 MDT Print View

"The sun and 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."
- Dr. Jasper Kirkby, 1998

Seems like the CERN CLOUD researchers already new the outcome of their experiment before running it.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Retrired School Principals on 07/05/2010 13:53:25 MDT Print View

"Would you allow yourself to be operated on by a self-taught surgeon? Would you take bet-the-firm legal advice from a friend of a friend who's not a lawyer or barrister but reckons it's not rocket science?"

I don't consider the study of climate to be in the same league as those specialist skills. Climatology is a HUGE catch-all of many different disciplines, often contradicting each other. To me, the better comparison would be "would you take the advice of a surgeon who says your knee will be better if he operates on it", or the advice of 4 different close friends and 2700 online comments saying that knee surgery made their situation worse or at least no better?? If you then went to Medline and did a little *basic* research of your own (or asked a friend that was more familiar with scientific literature) and found that there is no compelling evidence that knee surgery helps much above a placebo rate, would you still get the surgery? Sadly, the majority of folks would choose surgery because they implicitly trust the "experts". I do not.

Nia Schmald
(nschmald) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Retrired School Principals on 07/05/2010 14:18:34 MDT Print View

Yes, but what would you do when you found out that 90% of the published, peer reviewed researchers said that the knee surgery would indeed be beneficial? Would the bloggers carry more weight?

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Retrired School Principals on 07/05/2010 14:39:15 MDT Print View

"Yes, but what would you do when you found out that 90% of the published, peer reviewed researchers said that the knee surgery would indeed be beneficial? Would the bloggers carry more weight?"

It depends on who funded the peer-reviewed research. A very good personal example is treatment for osteoarthritis in my ankle. There was a flurry of published research showing that injections of Hyaluronic Acid were beneficial (in knees too). So I went, armed with research, to my orthopaedic surgeon and asked if he could do this kind of injection. He said "NO, no one in NZ does this anymore...the research was mostly funded by the people making the injections, and in the real world we find that it makes things worse for at least 20% of folks, and most others get no benefit". All I'm saying is that climatology is very complicated and multi-disciplinary. I personally don't take any one's word as the gospel.

Don't get me wrong-I think it's clear that things are getting warmer. Whether it mainly human industry that's to blame is more controversial. What is NOT controversial to me is that humans have over-populated and exploited this planet to breaking point, and it's not just climate. The things we need to do to minimise this damage happen to be the same things that will reduce carbon emissions. So from my point if view, we should urgently change our ways and do everything we can to live more modest lifestyles. I, for one, have given up air travel and meat, and grow as many of my own veggies as I can, plus raise hens for eggs. I bike or walk everywhere in town. It's a meager start, and I really need to curb my gear habit and stop buying imported goods, but ya gotta start some where...

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Retrired School Principals on 07/05/2010 16:01:42 MDT Print View

> humans have over-populated and exploited this planet to breaking point, and it's not just climate

I will keep RogT happy and profess an open mind still on the details of climate change. There is still a lot of interpretation required there. And, we can adapt.

But, as Lynn wrote, there are other bigger problems looming for the human race, and the supply of fresh water is one of the most extreme. Many countries are depleting their subterranean aquifers so fast that they will lose much of their agriculture in the next few decades. What will India and China do then? Not to mention some areas of the USA?

Cheers

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Adapt on 07/05/2010 17:34:16 MDT Print View

Some can adapt, but since most in this world live near the
oceans, and many within a few feet of sea level, it is likely
many will not survive drastic sea level rises.

The consequences for many of the world's poor could be
profound. Preplanning, if not reversing climate change,
could help those folks adapt.

obx hiker
(obxcola) - MLife

Locale: Outer Banks of North Carolina
"The Carbon Flame War" on 07/05/2010 20:01:16 MDT Print View

Meanwhile here at 11 feet above sea level...........

Anyone seen the documentary prize winner from Sundance this year. I think it's called Gas Land.

PArt of it is evidently about a process called Hydraulic Fracking. Force this really ummmm toxic ( to make it slippery and I guess for characteristics under pressure...... like brake fluid or regular automotive hydraulic fluid ) stuff down between layers of shale to crack the layers open and permit easier access to the natural gas trapped in pockets or between layers.... The companies involved are also evidently funding lots of those clean safe natural gas TV adds touting natural gas as a better, cleaner, local alternative to foreign sources of oil possibly to build political support for domestic natural gas and thereby to soften opposition to hydraulic fracking and other seriously consequential extraction methods.

Lots of useful by-products

. More Hydrocarbons to not add carbon to the atmosphere and not increase warming. ;)
. Potentially fouls the surroundings with the highly toxic hydraulic fracking fluid. What th' frack!
. Same stuff often ends up in the aquifer.
. Reducing/poisoning water for all uses for who knows how long??

There are several video clips of folks lighting up ( or almost exploding) their home tap water. In areas where fracking is currently being practiced it has become somewhat of a parlour trick to entertain guests. There are videos probably available a few mouse clicks away on a youtube station near you.

What a world. As Dicky V would say It's a trifecta baby!

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 07/05/2010 20:09:33 MDT Print View

Fracking -- I was just discussing this with my biking buddy, as a matter of fact. Interesting article.

obx hiker
(obxcola) - MLife

Locale: Outer Banks of North Carolina
Fracking on 07/05/2010 20:18:59 MDT Print View

Here's a link to an exploding tap water video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

On the bright side this could be really an advance for lite-weight back-packing.... I mean if you can burn the local water.... Oh wait a minute if you had to pack-in drinking water..... never mind!

Edited by obxcola on 07/05/2010 20:21:27 MDT.

obx hiker
(obxcola) - MLife

Locale: Outer Banks of North Carolina
Gas-Land on 07/05/2010 20:27:09 MDT Print View

And the trailer for Gas-Land.

Beddy-by time. Sweet dreams !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8&feature=related

Edited by obxcola on 07/05/2010 20:28:21 MDT.

Joe Clement
(skinewmexico) - MLife

Locale: Southwest
The Carbon Flame War on 07/06/2010 00:02:52 MDT Print View

Wow. That article on fracking had to be the most biased, sophmoric piece of cr*p I've ever read. Even managed to get Cheney in it, even though Halliburton had been doing that for 40 years before he came. Really a shame they couldn't have focused on the problems, rather than follwoing the tired old "oil companies evil, environmentalists good" formula. Thousands of trucks to frac a well. That's just stupid. Journalism is dead. It's like being in a 3rd world country, where the writer is filling in whatever a particular party wants printed.

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 07/06/2010 01:46:09 MDT Print View

It's like being in a 3rd world country, where the writer is filling in whatever a particular party wants printed.

Um, "a 3rd world country"? What does good journalism have to do with the country? There's probably more bad journalism represented in the US than in any other country in the world, simply because they have the money and media to do it. India and the Philippines have some of the best English journalism in the world. You can't tell me that the National Enquirer and Fox News are good journalism.

David Lutz
(davidlutz)

Locale: Bay Area
"The Carbon Flame War" on 07/06/2010 09:06:57 MDT Print View

Miguel - You reveal your biases by lumping Fox News in with the National Enquirer.

The news on Fox is consistently reliable and even-handed, more so than the other news channels.

Fox News and the WSJ were, until very recently, the only news organizations asking tough questions of our current government.

I'm talking about the news, not opinion shows like Beck and Hannity. Although those two are no better or worse than Maddow or Olberman.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
comedy. on 07/06/2010 10:25:43 MDT Print View

David, you reveal your biases by stating that "the news on Fox is consistently reliable and even-handed, more so than the other news channels."

Too funny!

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 07/06/2010 14:22:08 MDT Print View

"The news on Fox is consistently reliable and even-handed, more so than the other news channels."

Yes, that's laughable to me too.

Roger C and David Olsen are right on the money. Climate change (and more to the point of this thread, Climategate) are important things to consider, but we have bigger problems looming in the immediate future. It is quite likely that nature will fight back soon (and has been already), and many (more) humans will suffer terribly because of it. Climate change, if it's anthrogenic, is just one small part of the horrific devastation we have inflicted on this planet. If I hear one more politician tell me we need to grow the economy (read 'live unsustainably') to be happier, wealthier people, I might just defect to another dimension.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: "The Carbon Flame War" on 07/06/2010 17:49:51 MDT Print View

"Fox News and the WSJ were, until very recently, the only news organizations asking tough questions of our current government."

Do you ever wonder why they didn't ask the previous bunch of clowns some tough questions? Strictly in the name of evenhandedness of course.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Retrired School Principals on 07/06/2010 17:53:28 MDT Print View

"What will India and China do then? Not to mention some areas of the USA?"

For India and China, it's a bit of a sticky wicket since they both have nukes. For the USA, it's very simple; we just invade Canada. ;)

Dave U
(FamilyGuy) - F

Locale: Rockies
Re: on 07/06/2010 17:59:05 MDT Print View

"we just invade Canada."

We burned down your White House once. We can do it again.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Retrired School Principals on 07/06/2010 18:03:30 MDT Print View

"For the USA, it's very simple; we just invade Canada. ;)"

Don't forget there's a LOT of land in central and South America too!