The Other Climate Theory

Size of aerosol particles studied was in the 1.7nm range. Size of particles about which cloud droplets coalesce are in the 200nm range. That is why all the articles about the experiment claiming cosmic rays are growing clouds are false. The particles used in the experiment are too small to grow clouds.

 

What I find worrying is the sensationalist articles (like this) that claim it 'proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man.'

So many are being mislead

 

What rubbish! Everyone knows that global warming is caused by President Obama.

 

psssst...the strongest La Nina ever observed started in May 2010.
But I know you don’t care. You will say anything to win. You are desperate.


Signs of a developing La Niña emerged during autumn 2010 as the Pacific cooled rapidly at the end of the 2009-10 El Niño. By July, La Niña conditions were established and most of Australia experienced significantly higher than average rainfall over the next eight months. Peaking between late 2010 and early 2011, this La Niña event was one of the strongest observed, in a record dating from the late 1800s.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/feature/ENSO-feature.shtml

 

No - NASA do not say now say 1936 was the warmest year on record.

We are talking about a global phenomenon here - not just the weather in your back yard.

 

Look up "CFCs" and "ozone layer".

Then come back and explain to us why you think the "assution(?) that man is affecting it any meaningful way is just that, absurd."

 

^ Someone who gets it.

But this experimentation still does not eliminate the common sense history that we know occurred in the distant past. There had been global cooling and global warming long before man ever existed and the invention of automobiles.

This common sense approach alone should be sufficient to disprove the idiot assertions that man is what is causing the climate to change and not influences from the sun and other natural causes.

When I was in High School the alarmists were suggesting a massive cooling of the earth. Frankly, I will take warming over an ice age any day. What disturbs me about this debate is the destruction it causes to economies and the waste. My opinion is that it is the result sought by those who hate man more than any other living thing and would do anything to reduce man's ability to change his environment.

 

Forgive me for not quite understanding your point here. How does the existence of natural climate changes disprove the existence of man-made climate changes? Isn't it just common sense, as you put it, that both could co-exist?

 

The study is how cosmic rays aid in the FORMATION of aerosol particles.

 

That being the case, shouldn't his words carry more weight, not less, than the WSJ activists who latch on to them?

Unless I'm reading him wrong, he seems to be saying that those hypotheses are not supported from his data, at least not yet.

I did see that CERN in their press release says that models' treatment of aerosol formation needs to be revised. But I can't find anywhere that Kirkby (or anyone else) said that models get cloud creation wrong, or leave out cloud impact. Can you point out where he said that?

This is not a small point, because not all aerosols form clouds. And while I agree this experiment provides interesting new data on aerosols, I don't see at this point an evidence that cosmic ray aerosols are in that small group of aerosols that do form clouds.

But perhaps you can correct me on that point.

 

yes, aerosol particles that are too small to allow cloud droplets to coalesce.

 

It seems to me that the optimal climate is one where the net of all anthropgenic forcings is zero. In other words, one in which only natural climate forcings are relevant.

Would that be OK with you?

 

I vote yes.

http://youtu.be/vvztL9r47MI

 

Nice! Thank You.

 

But that's because President Obama is causing Cosmic Rays!

 

This press briefing was drafted by his office.

 

Complete paragraph:

Yes the models need to be revised, but that does not mean the effects of cosmic rays need to be added to the models.

 

Again, if you go back to the my original post, this is simply the stepping off of this research. They're nailing down variables. But they've already demonstrated that the models do not accurately reflect cloud creation at all (solely relying on two vapors and water which isn't the case at all). All in all a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) important part when attempting predict climate.

Kirkby says that the results thus far do not prove that cosmic rays have a significant impact on climate but the possibility that it does is very real. More or less one of the things he's trying to prove one way or the other.

http://www.livescience.com/15733-mystery-ingredient-influences-cloud-formation.html

 

No...You are misunderstanding the article...It reads...

"Studies suggest they may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover."

 

In post two of this thread, the author of the research is quoted regarding the particles:

"These are far too small to seed cloud droplets"

 

I think you're missing my point here. You originally said that "the data they [climate models] use for cloud creation is flat out wrong or cloud impact is entirely left out."

But what I didn't see was that the CERN press release, nor the paper itself, said that climate models got clouds wrong. All I saw was that models of aerosols will have to be revised. So I was asking where you got the idea that models got clouds wrong too.

 

Post 3 clarifies that the scientist is talking about experimentation SO FAR which is appropriate when one is using the scientific method and in the midst of experimentation.

 

Read it again. Current climate models factor cloud creation as just two vapors (sulfuric acid and ammonia) and water. This experiment has proven that that is not the case and other factors contribute.

This first part of the experiment has proven that what we know about cloud creation or the scientific consensus on them is incorrect.

 

Correct. So any speculation of CR creating clouds is premature. So claiming that CR affecting climate is an hypothesis, not "the other theory" as the OP states.

 

Refuted

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI[/ame]

Come on guys. Can we actually think of solutions to the problem? Denying it won't make it go away.