Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

[skookerasbil]

More losing for the k00ks...........

 

[ScienceRocks]

We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).

Dangerous business, rocks, for a hand wringing warmist, to start examining the paleoclimate. The unfortunate (for you) fact of the paleoclimate is that it supports the claim of CO2 driving the climate even less than it supports the CERN findings.

And where do you get the idiot idea that there is no evidence to support the CERN findings in the paleo record? Are you trying to claim that there is no period in the paleo record in which there were 314 months of consecutive warming? Show me some proof to support any such claim. Hell, in the past 50,000 years there are multiple time periods where temperatures rose more rapidly than the present for many years in a row. You want to claim that it didn't happen because there was no electronic sensor present to record the event?

More losing for the k00ks...........

There is to much losing.

 

[wirebender]

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.

We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.

We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.

No, actually, we do not know that.

So describe the observed, repeatable evidence that supports the claim. If it is there, you should certainly have no problem pointing it out and I, for one, would be damned interested in seeing it.

We KNOW that the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses supposedly alter the climate can not be described in any terms that are supported or predicted by any law of physics.

You know...I think you're just wrong.

Well hell, big guy, how about you just step on up to the plate and prove me wrong. I doubt that anyone other than you gives a tinkers damn about what you think. Step on up and describe which physical law supports, and predicts a greenhouse effect as promoted by AGW alarmists.

Science agrees that you're wrong.

Then have your "science" provide you with an explanation of the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect.

But if you want to dismiss basic science, if that make you feel good about yourself and the masters to whom you feel allegiance, that is your right, of course.

Climate science doesn't do basic science. They skip right past all those pesky laws of science and write simulations that ignore them completely then simply accept the output of their terribly flawed simulations as if they were actual data. It is the basic science, the laws of physics and the chemical facts of GHG molecules that dispute and disprove the claims of AGW alarmists.

But you're still wrong.

So step on up and prove it. Prove it at the foundation. Which pysical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by AGW alarmists?

 

[wirebender]

So your unsupported yap-yap goes. This is the real story;

A23A

A real scientist, with real arctic experiance, not a pretender like you.

And which part of that idiot video do you believe disproves anything I said rocks? Give me the time stamp at which you believe I am proven wrong and I will be happy to review it and address whatever is there.

 

[rdean]

Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.

It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........

Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?

 

[wirebender]

Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.

It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........

Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?

Mirrors? Good, and remarkably apt choice of terms since your evaluation of the atmosphere and temperature is as if you were looking into a mirror. What we get from the ice cores is a lag time of centuries between rising temperatures and increased CO2. Since you are looking at the data in a mirror, you reach the mistaken conclusion that increased CO2 is the cause of rising temperatures rather than the result of rising temperatures as all of us who aren't looking at the data in a mirror already know.

Now climate science has had to acknowledge that rising atmospheric CO2 has lagged behind rising temperatures for some time now so they came up with this
cockamamie bit of pseudoscience claiming that at some point the increased CO2 "amplifies" the temperatures that have already been on the rise for centuries. What climate science doesn't seem to be able to do is describe a mechanism by which this happens that is supported by and predicted by any of the laws of science.

How about you? Can you describe the mechanism by which the claimed greenhouse effects in terms of physical laws and the actual chemical and physical properties of the various so called greenhouse gasses?

 

[konradv]

You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.

We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.

We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.

No, actually, we do not know that.

Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?

The proof that GHGs can absorb IR is a SIMPLE experiment. Anyone with a specrophotometer can do it. Since there's a principle called Conservation of Energy, where does that energy go, if not to keep heat on earth? Now it's your turn to answer a question. BTW, statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space. What would the other half be doing?

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.

We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.

We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.

No, actually, we do not know that.

Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?

On the planet Earth. Repeatedly.

Methane & Climate — OSS Foundation

There is increasing evidence that the major extinctions of the past several hundreds of millions of years are associated with long lived events following major tectonic disturbances that result in release of greenhouse gases, with associated global warming, ocean anoxia etc.

For example the early Jurassic extinction is associated with events (greenhouse gas induced warming) lasting 200,000 years. Likewise comprehensive analyses shows a coincidence of major tectonic events, and resulting elevation of greenhouse gas levels, are associated with several of the major extinctions of the last 300 million years. Note that CO2 isn’t the only player. Methane is implicated in several of these events (see especially the PETM below) and sulphurous oxides and their effects on ocean acidity and oxygen content are also implicated.

Greenhouse environments are associated with the very delayed (millions of years) recovery of biota following these extinctions.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.

We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.

We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.

No, actually, we do not know that.

So describe the observed, repeatable evidence that supports the claim. If it is there, you should certainly have no problem pointing it out and I, for one, would be damned interested in seeing it.







Well hell, big guy, how about you just step on up to the plate and prove me wrong. I doubt that anyone other than you gives a tinkers damn about what you think. Step on up and describe which physical law supports, and predicts a greenhouse effect as promoted by AGW alarmists.



Then have your "science" provide you with an explanation of the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect.

But if you want to dismiss basic science, if that make you feel good about yourself and the masters to whom you feel allegiance, that is your right, of course.

Climate science doesn't do basic science. They skip right past all those pesky laws of science and write simulations that ignore them completely then simply accept the output of their terribly flawed simulations as if they were actual data. It is the basic science, the laws of physics and the chemical facts of GHG molecules that dispute and disprove the claims of AGW alarmists.

But you're still wrong.

So step on up and prove it. Prove it at the foundation. Which pysical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by AGW alarmists?

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

Just to get a bit of this out of the way, the effective temperature of the Earth with radius r is:

πr2(1 – a)S= 4πr2σT4, or

Teff = [S(1 -a)/4σ]1/4 = 255 K

We can then write an equation for the energy balance of the atmosphere, as

Iup,atmosphere + Idown, atmosphere = Iup, ground

= 2ɛTatmosphere4 = ɛTground4 (also accounting for emissivity), or

Tground = fourthroot (2Tatmosphere)

This temperature is below freezing, and so this shows that if the Earth’s temperature were purely based on the amount of solar radiation it receives, it would be far from habitable. The gap between our present day comfort, and an iceball planet is due to the fact that some of the outgoing infrared radiation is not immediately sent right back to space, but is absorbed by the atmosphere, where some is radiated downward to the surface. This is due to the fact that we have greenhouse gases, which are transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing infrared radiation strongly. The mean surface temperature difference is,

Δ T ≡ Ts – Teff = 33 K

The mean temperature of the Earth’s surface is actually 288 K, which says that the greenhouse gases are responsible for a 33 K enhancement. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.

So what is going with this greenhouse??

 

[martybegan]

Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.

It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........

Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?

Time for a little science lesson. First, when it comes to the cores they do not know an "exact age." What they have is an estimate based on either depth vs. historical precipiation dating, or carbon14 dating of any organic material found in the core. This is nowhwere near the "Exact date, even down to a single year. At best they have accuracies in the decade/century range.

Second, while they anaylse the content of the air bubble right now, they have to take into account things like diffusion of gasses through the ice, which could or could not be negligble. The relationship between the air now and the air when it was entrapped is not a hard fact, but an inferred value based upon assumptions of time vs. diffusion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 2 | Climate Change

To act as a greenhouse gas the molecule must possess a dipole moment, or some of its vibrational motions must create a temporary dipole moment. This eliminates homonuclear diatomic molecules (O2, N2) as being able to interact with the infrared. A dipole moment of a molecule is the product of the charge and the distance between the charge. Gases are not rigid stick figures like in high school chemistry class, but are constantly in motion and are vibrating. The molecules we are discussing in the atmosphere have no net charge (i.e., they are neutral) but they may have localized charges. Consider how water has localized areas of positive (hydrogen) and negative (oxygen), and so individual molecules tend to stick to one another. The diatomic molecule vibrations are very symmetric, and so the center of mass, and of charge, of the system is not displaced during vibration. This is not true when you have three molecules, as the center of charge moves as the molecule vibrates, creating a dipole moment. For carbon dioxide, you can have a symmetric vibration (this acts like the diatomic molecules and so is not infrared active), but you can also have the asymmetric fashion, in which one bond shortens while the other lengthens. There is also the bending mode, and different vibrations correspond to absorption at different wavelengths. As is the well known case for CO2, infrared radiation at 667 cm-1 (15.00 μm) excites these vibrations.

 

[konradv]

Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.

It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........

Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?

Time for a little science lesson. First, when it comes to the cores they do not know an "exact age." What they have is an estimate based on either depth vs. historical precipiation dating, or carbon14 dating of any organic material found in the core. This is nowhwere near the "Exact date, even down to a single year. At best they have accuracies in the decade/century range.

Second, while they anaylse the content of the air bubble right now, they have to take into account things like diffusion of gasses through the ice, which could or could not be negligble. The relationship between the air now and the air when it was entrapped is not a hard fact, but an inferred value based upon assumptions of time vs. diffusion.

No one claims that it can determine an "exact date", so while interesting that fact doesn't tell us much. Also, the scientists studing bubbles in ice are quite aware of diffusion and take that into account. Why does it always come down to "scientists are screwing up", when those criticizing them usually don't know a tenth of what those they're criticizing do?

 

[martybegan]

Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.

It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........

Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?

Time for a little science lesson. First, when it comes to the cores they do not know an "exact age." What they have is an estimate based on either depth vs. historical precipiation dating, or carbon14 dating of any organic material found in the core. This is nowhwere near the "Exact date, even down to a single year. At best they have accuracies in the decade/century range.

Second, while they anaylse the content of the air bubble right now, they have to take into account things like diffusion of gasses through the ice, which could or could not be negligble. The relationship between the air now and the air when it was entrapped is not a hard fact, but an inferred value based upon assumptions of time vs. diffusion.

No one claims that it can determine an "exact date", so while interesting that fact doesn't tell us much. Also, the scientists studing bubbles in ice are quite aware of diffusion and take that into account. Why does it always come down to "scientists are screwing up", when those criticizing them usually don't know a tenth of what those they're criticizing do?

Rdean used the term "exact date", I was talking about his point.

And yes, I know they are aware of the diffusion issues. My concern isn't about the scientists screwing up, its when the political types take data such as this and pass it off as irrefutable fact. The issue isn't the scientists, the issue is politicians trying to pass off derived data as hard measured data, and both of us know the difference between the two.

 

[NGSamson]

Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.

CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.
.
.
.
.

CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.

"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN - International Business Times

I thought cow farts caused global warming ?

 

[wirebender]

No, actually, we do not know that.

Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?

The proof that GHGs can absorb IR is a SIMPLE experiment. Anyone with a specrophotometer can do it. Since there's a principle called Conservation of Energy, where does that energy go, if not to keep heat on earth? Now it's your turn to answer a question. BTW, statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space. What would the other half be doing?

Poor konradv. So myopic is your belief in whatever your priests say to you that you are unable to look past thier proclamations even a nanometer; which oddly enough is about as far as you would need to look in order to see that the very IR absorbed by a CO2 or any other so called GHG molecule is immediately emitted.

Interesting that you bring up the law of conservation of energy. Do you have the slightest idea what it says? The short version states that: "The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed.

That, my dear konradv means that the energy that goes into a system is all that there is. Energy can not be multipled, or compounded. Now take a look at the energy budget proposed by your priests:

See the text at the bottom of the yellow beam representing the energy absorbed by the surface of the earth by the sun? It clearly states that the surface of the earth absorbs 168 watts per square meter from its only energy source.

Now look to the other side of the graphic. That tan bar states quite clearly that the surface of the earth is absorbing nearly twice as much energy in the form of backradiation as it gets from its only energy source and the tan bar just to the left of that one states that the surface of the earth, which absorbs 168 watts per square meter of energy from its only energy source is somehow radiating 350 watts per square meter of energy.

Now konradv, within the context of the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, explain how the surface of the earth can radiate more than twice as much energy as it receives from its only energy source.

As to the energy you believe is being radiated back towards and absorbed by the surface in direct opposition to both the law of conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics, explain which law of physics you believe would support and predict that IR energy in the form of an EM field might flow in two directions along any given vector.

For the life of me konradv, I don't know why you keep jumping into this. We both know that the topic is way over your head and I have explained this to you multiple times and you have no rebuttal at all. Do you suffer some sort of short term memory loss and simply forget that every time you jump into this topic, you get your ass handed to you?

 

[wirebender]

On the planet Earth. Repeatedly.

Methane & Climate — OSS Foundation

There is increasing evidence that the major extinctions of the past several hundreds of millions of years are associated with long lived events following major tectonic disturbances that result in release of greenhouse gases, with associated global warming, ocean anoxia etc.

For example the early Jurassic extinction is associated with events (greenhouse gas induced warming) lasting 200,000 years. Likewise comprehensive analyses shows a coincidence of major tectonic events, and resulting elevation of greenhouse gas levels, are associated with several of the major extinctions of the last 300 million years. Note that CO2 isn’t the only player. Methane is implicated in several of these events (see especially the PETM below) and sulphurous oxides and their effects on ocean acidity and oxygen content are also implicated.

Greenhouse environments are associated with the very delayed (millions of years) recovery of biota following these extinctions.

Which part of any of that do you believe contradicts and disproves anything that I have said?

 

[Old Rocks]

All of it.

 

[wirebender]

. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.

So what is going with this greenhouse??

As we have been through already rocks your priests model of the earth, by dividing the energy received from the sun in the form of P/4 makes of the earth a flat disk that doesn't experience day and night but instead is bathed in a sort of twilight 24 hours a day. The energy received by the earth from the sun is not represented as it is actually received and therefore, the output does not represent reality either.

Your priests, by dividing energy from the sun in the form of P/4 are treating the earth as a blackbody, which it is not. You can represent energy leaving a star in the form P/4 because a star looks basically the same from any direction you care to look. If you make it into a flat disk, the energy output is still the same because the radiation from a star is basically the same from any direction.

A star with regard to energy output is a 3D 360 degree self illuminate sphere and dividing its energy in the form P/4 is perfectly rational. The earth, with regard to energy input and output is not a 3D 360 degree self illuminated sphere. It is, instead, with regard to energy input a 3D 180 degree illuminated hemisphere and therefore energy calculations for input and output must be done in the form of P/2 and oddly enough, when you create an energy budget representing the earth as a 3D 360 sphere that has only 180 degrees illuminated at any given time, one need not invent a greenhouse effect in order to account for the temperature of the earth.

Did you know that when you attempt to plug the parameters of other planets into the model upon which trenberth et. al. use to explain earth, the results don't even begin to describe those planets? It is mere coincidence that the models replicate earth because a bunch of non physical unsupported myth is applied to the models in order to get an approximation of earth.

If you apply a reality based model which treats energy in the form of P/2 however, and acknowleges that the planet is a sphere being irradiated by its energy source across only 180 degrees at a time, you can plug the parameters of any planet into it and get a very close approximation of the reality of the planet's climate.

We both know that the math is over your head rocks so it follows that you have no idea what the equations you posted actually mean or how they relate to the reality of the earth's energy balance.

 

[wirebender]

All of it.

You are a perfect example of what happens when you cut and paste material that you don't understand. The fact is that none of your post contradicts or proves wrong anything I have said. If you beleive there is a specific contradiction, then point it out and explain it rocks.

Of course we both know that isn't going to happen because you don't understand what you cut and pasted in the first place.

 

[Old Rocks]

You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

In the present times, the planet is now receiving more energy than it emits back out to space. Such a planetary energy imbalance has been predicted and confirmed (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005). In addition, the oceans are now taking in heat which is where most of the heat from the imbalance goes. Because of the large thermal intertia of the oceans, there is still a measurable amount of warming that is “in the pipeline” which means that even if modern CO2 concentrations were held constant, we would warm up a bit more. The direction of this planetary energy imbalance mentioned is opposite the imbalance that we would expect if modern day global warming was caused by internal variability such as ocean circulation changes, etc. But it would be miselading to say that the heat content change is due to re-radiated IR. The global mean heat content change is the result of changes in *net* radiation reaching the ocean surface, which includes downward re-radiated IR due to CO2, water vapor, clouds, etc., but also includes any increase in the *absorbed* solar radiation at the ocean surface due to any long-term decrease in clouds. But I should be more clear on what happens when you change the greenhouse composition of the atmosphere.