CERN: Climate Change

[ford prefect]

Rather interesting article I thought:

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register

 

[rynnor]

The BBC version of the same story puts an entirely different spin on it unsurprisingly.

The important bit is that the experiment has had a completely unexpected outcome and that cloud formation is approx. 80% determined by a completely unknown mechanism.

This doesnt sound very important until you know that a small change in cloud formation has a proportionately large impact on temperature.

Its another nail in the coffin of the 'settled science' arguement (which itself is an oxymoron but thats a seperate debate).

 

[ford prefect]

Exactly. Fascinating stuff really. It will be interesting to see how this new information will impact the current models. To quite a large degree I should think. In does lend a great deal of support to the idea that the gamma omissions and strength of earths magnetic field at the time of solar disturbances and various solar cycles can have a large impact on the climate.

 

[rynnor]

In does lend a great deal of support to the idea that the gamma omissions and strength of earths magnetic field at the time of solar disturbances and various solar cycles can have a large impact on the climate.

Hmm - I dont see how an unknown effect lends support to any theory but one thing that is sure is that the missing factor is not CO2.

 

[Embattle]

Better safe than sorry.

 

[rynnor]

Better safe than sorry.

Best never leave the house then

 

[rynnor]

I just read the original article in todays Nature.

The unknown factor in boundary layer nucleation is expected to be some form of organic compounds.

Another thing I spotted was that they found that ground level cosmic ray levels could multiply nucleation 2-10x and more.

This is interesting because relatively few cosmic rays make it to ground level - the peak cosmic ray concentration occurs about a mile above sea level so up in the atmosphere the effect of cosmic rays could be considerably greater so the conclusions are if anything understated.

The article also stated that they didnt know how many of these nucleation particles would grow large enough to form water droplets or how long theyd hang around but the guy on the BBC goes against this stance and pushes his own conclusions that they arent significant - based on what I dont know

 

[Raven]

Based on the BBC being so far up the traditional climate change theories arse they can't see anything else.

 

[Embattle]

Best never leave the house then

Isn't it more dangerous inside a house

 

[old.Tohtori]

After watching couple of the richard hammond earth thingies, journey to X or some such, i've come to the very potent conclusion that we can do f*ck all to this planet

We might kill ourselves off by some idiotic move, but the blue marble will keep on turning, churning and create a new race to offer it plastic sacrifices.

 

[Job]

I've lost interest in who's right or wrong, the simple fact is noone's doing anything about it and never will, so finding out the truth is like finding out wether your car makes the next bend or goes over a cliff and doing nothing about it.

It's supposed to be the most serious disaster facing humanity and our governments approach was a few posters asking you to walk to the shops now and then, which in the making probably cost more carbon than the 10 people who did saved.