- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 22,947
- Reaction score
- 17,774
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
But... but... Paradigm shift! WUWT! Heads exploding!!!From Gavin Schmidt, the head of GISS at NASA
:mrgreen:
But... but... Paradigm shift! WUWT! Heads exploding!!!From Gavin Schmidt, the head of GISS at NASA
But... but... Paradigm shift! WUWT! Heads exploding!!!
:mrgreen:
This doesn't shake climate research to its core. That's absurd. This is just one small piece of a very complex system. Interesting research, and useful, but you folks need to quit acting like this guy is overturning geocentricism.
Schmidt's tweets show him to be uninformed or lying. Please see #19, #20, #21 and #22.
I think if Svensmark's theory can account for .5 C of the warming from last century,He is overturning AGW-centrism.
Schmidt promotes himself on his own blog by using himself as a source.
What could be wrong with that?
I think if Svensmark's theory can account for .5 C of the warming from last century,
it does indeed throw considerable doubt on AGW being the primary cause of the observed warming.
Unfortunately, it appears Schmidt is either uninformed or lying. The theoretical and experimental research results reported in this paper did not exist in 2006.
From the OP:
The hypothesis in a nutshell
- Cosmic rays, high-energy particles raining down from exploded stars, knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions, that is, positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere.
- The ions help aerosols – clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules – to form and become stable against evaporation. This process is called nucleation. The small aerosols need to grow nearly a million times in mass in order to have an effect on clouds.
- The second role of ions is that they accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei – seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. The more ions the more aerosols become cloud condensation nuclei. It is this second property of ions which is the new result published in Nature Communications.
- Low clouds made with liquid water droplets cool the Earth’s surface.
- Variations in the Sun’s magnetic activity alter the influx of cosmic rays to the Earth.
- When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.
- When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.
- The implications of the study suggests that the mechanism can have affected:
- The climate changes observed during the 20th century
- The coolings and warmings of around 2°C that have occurred repeatedly over the past 10,000 years, as the Sun’s activity and the cosmic ray influx have varied.
- The much larger variations of up to 10°C occurring as the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars.
Yes.
The head of GISS is uninformed.
Or lying, because he’s desperate to deflect the massive success of Svensmark.
[emoji849]
Narrator: it cant
Narrator: it cant
Sure, if you ignore an abundance of evidence produced by scientific instruments distributed around the globe, along with the research of thousands of scientists working in different nations and for different employers, along with the fundamental understanding that "greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere to warm" combined with "oh yeah, human activity is throwing literally tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Why not? Remember there is scant empirical evidence about anything in the entire concept
known as AGW...
Sure, if you ignore an abundance of evidence produced by scientific instruments distributed around the globe, along with the research of thousands of scientists working in different nations and for different employers, along with the fundamental understanding that "greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere to warm" combined with "oh yeah, human activity is throwing literally tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
It's a reminder why we have the word "unseemly" in our language.
- Ironically enough, Schmidt shares the blog with Mann and Bradley, of hockey stick fame.
Is there a statute of limitations on crimes of deliberate climate deception?
hmmm, Schmidt and Mann have a disturbing resemblance.
You think alarmist socks are used to swell their ranks?
- You've seen how some suggest alarmism has been right, skeptics have been wrong, the warming pause never happened, etc.
Remember the cooling that ended in the 70's was supposed to be the next ice age?
Remember the truly crappy alarmist predictions by truly crappy alarmist charlatans?
- You still see people talk about warmest year ever.
You'd think by now they'd realize you can make a graph show anything you want if you choose the right time frame, gradation and vertices.
Of course, the success of such deception depends entirely on the susceptibility and intellectual inertia of the reader.
The most certain portion of AGW is the CO2 forcing, The added CO2 will cause an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere,Sure, if you ignore an abundance of evidence produced by scientific instruments distributed around the globe, along with the research of thousands of scientists working in different nations and for different employers, along with the fundamental understanding that "greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere to warm" combined with "oh yeah, human activity is throwing literally tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I think it may soon began to dawn on some of the more honest (or, perhaps, more ambitious:mrgreen of the AGW advocates that their world is about to change.
I think it may soon began to dawn on some of the more honest (or, perhaps, more ambitious:mrgreen of the AGW advocates that their world is about to change.
Why not? Remember there is scant empirical evidence about anything in the entire concept
known as AGW, Even the Top of atmosphere predicted energy imbalance from 2XCO2 is not measured, but calculated.
The only real measurements have from the CERES satellite between 2001 and 1016, show that CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.