innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
Yes, this is about "global warming", or "climate change" or whatever bullcrap is now being peddled by the climate modellers.
The (AGW) warmists suffered a blow recently, as years of denial of Svensmark's hypothesis of cosmic rays being the main driver of cloud formation (which in turn influences surface temperatures more than C=O2 and could easily explain the alleged warming) have failed to prevent confirmation of one of the proposed mechanisms of his hypothesis by CERN's CLOUD project. They're still shamelessly trying to deny the importance of cosmic rays, of course, but the contradictions are becoming a little too obvious. One of their propaganda sites insists on 4 conditions for recognizing their abject failure. Looking at those:
1 that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2 and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3 and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4 and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
#1 and #2 have been shown, and are fully supported by the results of this recent experiment (not to mention previous ones which, being small, were shunned). #3 is already taken as a fact in the warmist's models (the past "global dimming" favoured by atmospheric pollution), therefore it is deceitful for them to now question it when some work endangers their precious theories. And so is #4. Also, correlations between cloud cover and cosmic rays had already been observed and dismissed by the warmists, but now that's getting harder to do.
And from the press release by the group at CERN:
Basically the final disclaimed means just that the experiment needs to be repeated with other atmospheric gases (and there are many, many substances to test) in order for the chemical mechanisms involved in cloud formation to be fully described: only two molecules were tested, and with those the effect of cosmic rays was confirmed. There is no reason to assume it won't be with many others, just a need to identify those. But the important bit is the second paragraph: "it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone." Translation: the warmists' climate models which have been used for their scaremongering are, have always been, full of hot wind!
The (AGW) warmists suffered a blow recently, as years of denial of Svensmark's hypothesis of cosmic rays being the main driver of cloud formation (which in turn influences surface temperatures more than C=O2 and could easily explain the alleged warming) have failed to prevent confirmation of one of the proposed mechanisms of his hypothesis by CERN's CLOUD project. They're still shamelessly trying to deny the importance of cosmic rays, of course, but the contradictions are becoming a little too obvious. One of their propaganda sites insists on 4 conditions for recognizing their abject failure. Looking at those:
1 that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2 and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3 and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4 and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
#1 and #2 have been shown, and are fully supported by the results of this recent experiment (not to mention previous ones which, being small, were shunned). #3 is already taken as a fact in the warmist's models (the past "global dimming" favoured by atmospheric pollution), therefore it is deceitful for them to now question it when some work endangers their precious theories. And so is #4. Also, correlations between cloud cover and cosmic rays had already been observed and dismissed by the warmists, but now that's getting harder to do.
And from the press release by the group at CERN:
Basically the final disclaimed means just that the experiment needs to be repeated with other atmospheric gases (and there are many, many substances to test) in order for the chemical mechanisms involved in cloud formation to be fully described: only two molecules were tested, and with those the effect of cosmic rays was confirmed. There is no reason to assume it won't be with many others, just a need to identify those. But the important bit is the second paragraph: "it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone." Translation: the warmists' climate models which have been used for their scaremongering are, have always been, full of hot wind!
How cute.
