I think this was directed squarely at Joe Romm and his band of TPers. One of Romm’s favorite put downs is “anti-science”, a label he uses with abandon. This opinion piece appeared in the Chicago Tribune today to wide circulation. It’s pretty strong stuff.
The real science trashers
Today I am writing about religion. Specifically, about those who worship in the Church of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. More specifically, about those who, as a matter of faith, believe that the science of climate change is settled.
These believers preach that mankind is steering the planet onto an irreversible and cataclysmic course unless we do something. They have engaged in a clever ploy of labeling those who disagree with their dogma as “deniers” and “anti-science.” When actually they’re the ones trashing science.
Let’s take the latest scientific research that demonstrates, again, that the science of climate change is too complex to lend itself to simplifications and claims of “consensus.”
read the whole essay here
======================================================
The concept of a “science trasher” fits Romm perfectly, who is paid by a political organization (Center for American Progress) to spout invective daily.
I’m sure Josh can do something with this.
i believe we need a term for the panic-stricken CAGW believers, a counterpart to deniers.
I propose wetters.
Curious – nowhere in Byrne’s bio page does it mention him being employed by Big Oil…
Something I’ve noticed….
Articles like this tend to leave the comments open.
Irritable Climate Syndrome articles tend to have the comments closed…………..
[snip – will be misconstrued by YNW] And since science is the new god to many, it is only logical that “the science is settled” becomes a rock-solid principle. You don’t want to piss off your god by questioning his or her infallibility and you certainly cannot approach this god without a “fully illuminated” intermediary. Much too dangerous for the rabble- just leave your sacrifice and be off.
There is also a cadre of pay-per-trolls out there who pretend to be ordinary people making comments, but are really paid to deliver propaganda. Some pretend to be members of their opposition and say inflamatory, angry, stupid things to shift public opinion away from supporting their opponents. For example, a phony Tea Partier on a blog may pretend to be a religious racist in an attempt to marginalize people who may be religious, but not racist, who are taking action against government waste, over-control, and mismanagement. They get about a dime per post. It’s fun to expose them, if and when you have time to burn. I had one actually admit she was sorry she had to do it, but she needed the money. After that one post, she went right back to work.
“Demands that we all bow to some “consensus” that greenhouse gases cause global warming are as senseless as declaring that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.”
Good article. The final statement points out the importance of terminology and context. There are very few knowledgeable folks who would “deny” the evidence of evolution within species. Evolution from one species to another is still questionable to many. It boils down to what do we mean by “evolution”. Then what is theory vs proven facts? From single cell creatures to more complex organisms, theory. From brown bears to white bears, fact.
Here are hard cold facts very few even understand here in the real world on the planet Earth.
The two largest land masses on earth, Russia and Canada and the two least recorded by the AGW fanatics merely because both of us have a habit a lowering world temperatures the most, would be devastated without our climates changing. We count on ice roads in winter and summer construction seasons that have to use ice roads in both of our northern climates to reach our resources needed by the rest of the world. That’s just plain facts. Russia doesn’t apologize and all the EU nations greedily suck up Russian natural gas and oil. When the EU pissed off the Russians the Russians merely shut off their natural gas and Europe froze in the dark and European economies came to a screeching halt. And all the BILLIONS spent on EU “green” energy meant diddly squat to real Russian power that is real energy.
Believe it or not Canada has more than that power in North America. We are the single largest oil exported to the US, largest exporter of natural gas, our hydro powers much of the US east coast – recall when Quebec went down from solar flares years back the entire US east coast blacked out?
Most all that power in Canada is wrestled from northern climates as it is in Russia. Yes, we have to have climate change – we call that phenomena winter and summer up here. And NO none of oil, gas, or Hydro giants fund the so called scientist who write “denier” papers. We don’t need to fund such nonsense like the AGW side – if we really want to make a point about energy we have all the power in the world to make our point when ever we feel the need to shut down everything and send North America in the dark at our fingertips exactly like Russia. We’re not that stupid. The AGE side is!
Perfectly sensible article and words that have been written on this blog time and time again. When will the sheepies wake up? at the slaughter house ?
Maybe we should get them a grief counseling telephone number to call. It really seems hard for these cagw people to understand that we know very little. But any time people try to tell you something is a sure thing and insist we accept it, I push back because under those circumstances its much more likely to be a con job, especially with the stuff they seem to be willing to do to the economy to save us from ourselves.
“Wets” is a long-standing, overused term for a certain type of collectivist Statist, one who weeps into his soup, more commonly known as a “goo-goo.”
A better tag for street agitators such as Romm, Gavin Schmidt, in general the Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. –not to mention their Grand Sanhedrin known as Albert the Gore– would be the more descriptive appellation “Mephite,” meaning “one who shines and stinks by moonlight.”
“As the mephitic Romm has said…” practically writes itself.
LeeHarvey:
‘Curious – nowhere in Byrne’s bio page does it mention him being employed by Big Oil…’
There may be a reason for that – he may not be. But even if he is, does it matter? I prefer to judge arguments on their merits – that’s what distinguishes rationality from religion.
Good article, well reasoned and very calm and sensible. Agood antidote to Romm’s rants.
Latitude says:
August 30, 2011 at 11:24 am
“Irritable Climate Syndrome…”
I LIKE it!!!
Why do we have to remind scientists on the uncertainty of science?
But somehow those who disagree with Byrne have found out. Just look at the comments on the linked site.
@jim G
Evolution and CAGW are not comparable in any sense. No evidence has EVER been put forward that brings evolution into question. In contrast, the existence of a MWP, the possible role of cosmic rays in cloud formation, lack of increase in OHC, low climate sensitivity estimates from direct measurements and poor model performance all bring CAGW into at least some kind of question.
The other big difference is the A in Anthropogenic. Evolution is not human-caused (in some places humans drive evolution, but evolution was around long before us and will outlive us). In other words, we don’t have a choice about “addressing” evolution. If AGW is true, we have the next debate, about to what extent to address it.
/rant
did you even read the article?
Byrne thinks that the CERN experiments are designed to work out if greenhouse gases are affecting climate, and that their ambiguity means that we still don’t know if there is a greenhouse effect. Yet he gets on his high horse to criticise consensus when he doesn’t know the first thing about the science. This is pretty much textbook ‘anti-science’ no?
glen martin says:
August 30, 2011 at 11:21 am
i believe we need a term for the panic-stricken CAGW believers, a counterpart to deniers.
COCO-Nuts
FredT is correct
FredT says:
August 30, 2011 at 12:52 pm
did you even read the article?
Byrne thinks that the CERN experiments are designed to work out if greenhouse gases are affecting climate, and that their ambiguity means that we still don’t know if there is a greenhouse effect. Yet he gets on his high horse to criticise consensus when he doesn’t know the first thing about the science. This is pretty much textbook ‘anti-science’ no?
—————————————————————————————————————————–
FredT: Did YOU even read the article? Because you blew it. Byrne thinks the CERN experiments are designed to test whether or not cosmic rays create aerosols. He specifically told you that the CERN scientists stayed away from the AGW debate. Then you got on YOUR hi horse and proceeded to make yourself look like the back end of your mode of transportation.
Yet he gets on his high horse to criticise consensus when he doesn’t know the first thing about the science. This is pretty much textbook ‘anti-science’ no?
Huh? Have you read the article?
He is quite rightly saying that consensus itself is anti-science.
Correlation is not causation, consensus is not proof, models do not produce data. We know three fifths of eff-all about how the global climate works and yet some are prepared to sacrifice entire countries (Australia, USA, UK) in order to appease the Climate Gods which is an exemplar of the idiocy to which apparently sane, logical humans can descend. The CERN results have guaranteed the eventual demise of the CO2 infatuation but we can only speculate as to what devastation might be wrought in its name before it dies.
CAGW reminds me of the ‘shook yong’ panics which have afflicted Hong Kong and Singapore with some degree of regularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koro_%28medicine%29
Jit says:
August 30, 2011 at 12:50 pm
@jim G
“Evolution and CAGW are not comparable in any sense. No evidence has EVER been put forward that brings evolution into question. In contrast, the existence of a MWP, the possible role of cosmic rays in cloud formation, lack of increase in OHC, low climate sensitivity estimates from direct measurements and poor model performance all bring CAGW into at least some kind of question.
The other big difference is the A in Anthropogenic. Evolution is not human-caused (in some places humans drive evolution, but evolution was around long before us and will outlive us). In other words, we don’t have a choice about “addressing” evolution. If AGW is true, we have the next debate, about to what extent to address it.”
I never said evolution and AGW were comparable and one cannot prove a negative. The paper is about real science and not jumping to conclusions based upon weak, little or no real evidence. It’s about just doing the science and finding out what the answers might actually be. Evolution is only comparable in the sense that it is an unproven theory, at the top levels, where some people think it is a fact that all life evolved from single cell organisms. At this level it is an unproven theory just like AGW. Yes, IF, AGW is true we have a choice as to, IF we could do anything about it, IF we wanted to. Warm, is historically proven to be better than cold for life of all types.
“Anti-science”, FredT? And who do you see blocking the CERN CLOUD experiment for more than a decade?–the Deniers?
Heavens, NO!
And who are the people that wanted to stifle any constructive conversation about the recent results from the CERN CLOUD experiment–the Deniers?
Again, heavens, NO!
So quibble about this article if you want, but the bottom line is that the true deniers–those that rail on anything beyond their sole navel-gazing concept involving a trace greenhouse gas without any consideration for the myriad number of other contributing factors whatsoever–are those CAGW animals.
Have a few for breakfast and, as John Blake suggests above, you’d have a case of mephitosis.
Latitude says:
August 30, 2011 at 11:24 am
“Irritable Climate Syndrome…”
I LIKE IT TOO !!
I PLAN TO USE IT AGAIN SOON !
Tip of the day: When someone asks whether you have read the article in question, check to see whether you have in fact done so before responding.
Byrne: “The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence. On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn’t make one “anti-science” or a “denier.”
How precisely, Robert M or RockyRoad, is the CERN experiment “an early step in the chain of evidence” for global warming?
When skeptics go all gooey-eyed for someone who clearly doesn’t know anything, it really reduces their credibility. Lift up your game, people!
RockyRoad, You do realise that sub 100 nanometer sized aerosols are even more ‘trace’ than ‘trace greenhouse gases’. How could something so small possibly make a difference to global climate?
“The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence. On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn’t make one “anti-science” or a “denier.” It’s just the give and take of science”
As FredT has pointed out. This certainly sounds like CERN is providing evidence to prove, not disprove AGW.
FredT, you are familiar with Svensmark’s theory, right? It is the proposed answer to your questions.
tobyglyn says: This certainly sounds like CERN is providing evidence to prove, not disprove AGW.
——————-
Of course, man has a computer program designed to control the sun ramping up and down at our disposal. What you really need to see is the brilliant Apple computer app that controls the stars and their cosmic rays striking Earth’s atmosphere making clouds – $24.99 Canadian.
Dennis Byrne August 30, 2011 – The Chicago Tribune
Today I am writing about religion. Specifically, about those who worship in the Church of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. More specifically, about those who, as a matter of faith, believe that the science of climate change is settled.
We may have a long time to wait for the cult to die . Ptolemy’s view of an earth-centric universe lasted from about AD 150 and this was adopted by the Catholic church and held sway for 1400 years. Copernicus revived the work of Aristarchus and described a sun-centric solar system in 1543.. When Galileo noted by obsevation that Copernicus was right he was tried for Heresy (in 1633) and for thinking that: “that one may hold an opinion after it has been declared and defined as contrary to the Holy Scripture”. He was found guilty and confined to house arrest for life. The scary part is that it took until 1992 for the Catholic Church to admit it was wrong, in spite of 359 years of evidence supporting Galileo. If this cult follows a similar track then Saint Gore (as he will surely become) has until 2370 without needing any evidence of, or effects from, Global Warming before he will have to apologise for his mistake. I am sure he will become immortal or a staue of him will shed bloody tears in the pattern of, “Sorry Guys!” His 12 apostles will go forth and spread the word of Gore to the four corners of the Earth, (we’ll talk about whether the Earth is a sphere, flat plate, or a cube, later). Trenberth, Briffa, Jones, Lockwood, Mann, Schmidt, Romm, Cook, Hansen, Weaver, Thompson, Miller, all clutching their “Climate Reality Project” bibles (C.R.a.P. for short). I wonder who will be their Judas and crack first?
Science is a successful way of understanding things and thereby making it possible to obtain values from things.
Whenever success is observed by an incompetent, he may mimic it to obtain a status unachievable by merit. Mimicry is one of natures strategems for survival.
Because a scientist is associated with lab.coats and math, then, successful mimicry requires at least that. Implants are only for the truly committed.
When a position is acquired by mimicry rather than merit, of course, the results are… interesting.
(Would it be unseemly to mention that such things could not exist without generous plunder – er, funding – i mean, it might make those responsible for hiring the charlatans and paying the bills feel a little uncomfortable if they ever were struck with a sense of responsibility – ah- never happen…lol)
Among the luminaries of pseudo science through recent history, we have – and i won’t name any Germans, mmk?
honors to Dr John Cutler, Wellesley College ,U.S. Public Health Service. Your tax dollars at work.
http://news.yahoo.com/panel-reveals-details-1940s-experiment-012040543.html
So far as I am aware, there have been no multimillion dollar settlements over this. Somebody took no responsibility and then proceeded to do damage and then proceeded to fuggedaboudit. Dr. John certainly had no thought of returning his paychecks or fixing the damage. Oopsie.
Anything related to sex is a good bet for funding. Another cute oopsie by mock-scientists is known as The Tuskeegee Experiment. In 1974, a $10 million out-of-court settlement was reached. As part of the settlement, the U.S. government promised to give lifetime medical benefits and burial services to all living participants. What fun when a sense of mock-responsibility springs to life. That required a panel of inquiry. Panelists are funded too, eh.
This gets to be big business, eventually, but that’s getting ahead of the story. Gotta love how many jobs were provided by the science.mimicry industry, eh.
Eventually, this tale arrives at the awesomely ambitious, well organized AGW hoax whose prize was trillions of dollars of derivatives, monopolization of all energy supplies and unlimited power over people. This was at least 3 orders of magnitude higher grasping than Dr. Evil could conceive. The mind boggles at numbers with 4 commas.
Flashback to – founding fathers time –
The declaration of independence griped about “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
I’ve heard it said that this is the legitimate purpose of government! Regardless, it’s the only result that can be obtained. It’s happening again – but this time in the name of ‘science’.
Maybe “Trashers” would be a good name for them (CAGW Believers), for not only trashing real science, but, by forcing energy prices up, trashing economies, and by forcing their lies on children and on freedom-loving people worldwide, trashing democratic principles. Through their hatred of “carbon”, the basis for life, and C02, which plants love they trash the environment and life itself.
Sorry Robert M and others, but I’m Afraid FredT is dead on right with this one.
from the Byrne article
“The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, [b]although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence.[/b] On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn’t make one “anti-science” or a “denier.” It’s just the give and take of science.”
While Byrne may have the facts about what the CLOUD experiment did right, he seams to have gotten what it is supposed to prove completely backwards.
Remember, Just because you agree with someones Opinion, don’t assume they got to that opinion correctly. It looks to me like Byrne didn’t really understand what CLOUD was all about and is just repeating what he’s heard from others.
That’s odd, I could have sworn I’d seen others use Bold Tags before. Maybe I’m just doing it wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
[Use angle brackets, not square brackets. ~dbs, mod.]
Consensus is not a scientific term. Experiments and measurements either prove your hypothesis or they don’t, it’s really that simple.
Consensus is a political word.
There is considerable argument about what the CERN experiment does or does not point to with respect to global warming. The fact is the CERN experiment confirms the cosmic ray connection to the creation of nucleation mode aerosols (particles < 0.1μm).
While it is stated that the aerosols are too small to directly result in cloud nucleation, what isn't stated is to what degree the created aerosols will coagulate such that they transform into particles that can participate in cloud nucleation as it is well known that aerosols of this size will coagulate into larger particles and some 80% of nucleation mode aerosols are soluble (hygroscopic – capable of participating in cloud nucleation). To say they're too small to create clouds, while it may be true, avoids having to draw attention to the fact that nucleation mode aerosols do mix, bind, and grow into larger particles capable of doing so.
CERN does well to stick to stating what they discovered and not extrapolate fodder for the AGW debate. They're already facing significant loss of funding and don't need to pour gas (petrol for the good folks across the pond) on the funding fire.
http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~markl/pp/
glen martin says:
August 30, 2011 at 11:21 am
i believe we need a term for the panic-stricken CAGW believers, a counterpart to deniers.
I propose wetters
That term won’t stick. We do have a term, “alarmists.” but if you want the same degree of invesctive, I think “hysterics” appropriate.
“Climate change hysterics” implies fanatics who have totally lost it. And that is the case.
Thanks, Anthony! Dennis Byrne was formerly with the Chicago Sun-Times, and then he moved across town to the larger (more conservative) paper, the Chicago Tribune. He hints at local Chicagoland events, including our loss of the Superconducting Super-Collider project during the Pres. GHWB years (I was assisting the Illinois congressional delegation on this back in 1986), and the fact that our Fermilab is twisting in the wind now that the Tevatron accelerator is set to shut down. He’s one of our best editorial writers in this town, always hard-hitting. And no, he doesn’t work for Big Oil!
Byrne says:
Prof. Lindzen spoke about this very topic to Fermilab scientists during his excellent colloquium, please see “The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming” archive video at http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/Past_09_10.html
(Lindzen wasn’t the most popular guy in the auditorium that day, believe me!) Shorter clips are also on Youtube.
Unfortunately, “anti-science” is a very common tag to throw at someone when you don’t have the brains to grapple with the arguments or the desire to actually understand the opposing position. There might in fact be some people who are anti-science, but typically the tag is used as a purely rhetorical tool.
For those looking for a term for the Alarmists – I’ve been using Chicken Little with great success
Hoser says on August 30, 2011 at 12:13 pm:
… They get about a dime per post. …
Wow … where do I/does one apply?
.
FredT says on August 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm:
“RockyRoad, You do realise that sub 100 nanometer sized aerosols are even more ‘trace’ than ‘trace greenhouse gases’. How could something so small possibly make a difference to global climate?”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Hint: “seed”. (In contrast to CO2 which is not)
.
No evidence that brings “evolution” into question. Interesting. Of course the “hinge pin” is geoloical continuity, and the “age of the Earth”, etc.
I will just throw this out for thought: Certainly cosmic radiation at about 400 mili-Rem per year, has been constant. 2006, “Discovery Magazine”, Article: “Dangerous Discovery”. About finding
“soft tissue” in T-Rex bones. (I believe there has been DNA extracted since then, NOT very much intact, but identifiable. Also evidence to show it NOT a “contaminent” of any sort.)
Last time I checked, 10,000 REM will sterilize meat and allow you to keep a sample of say, turkey meat, in a sealed polymer bag for 35 years…and still be edible. (ALL bacteria gone.)
But 100,000 REM? Causes the “soft tissue” (so to speak, the meat) to break down to CO2, H2O, O2, N2, some nitrogen compounds, etc.
Thus T-Rex (hang on to your hat) is less than 300,000 years old. Not 270,000,000 years, or standard geological dating.
Re: My preceding comment – Radiation interaction with organic matter does not much care about the “dose rate”, but rather “total dose”. Thus there is no difference between 100,000 REM in 10 hours or 100,000 REM in 300,000 years. The accumulated radiation damage to organic compounds is the same. (And, for those with no nuclear background, or historical knowledge, back in the “good old days” of the AEC (Atomic Energy Commision), before we made our FIRST corporate/societal step backward into the STONE AGE by deciding to be “fearful” of all things “nuclear”…(our second step backwards, being fearful of FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY!)..the AEC did a marvelous number of studies on all things nuclear, and nuclear dose wise…for materials, from metals to mice and men.)
“Curious – nowhere in Byrne’s bio page does it mention him being employed by Big Oil…”
The “funded by big oil” argument needs to be put in its rightful place.
Has a plaintiff ever objected that the defense counsel is funded by the accused?
Perhaps they would prefer that “big oil” hire Darryl Hannah as spokesperson?
When the EU pissed off the Russians the Russians merely shut off their natural gas and Europe froze in the dark and European economies came to a screeching halt.
Sorry Wil, but that’s unadulterated bollocks.
Actually that is a big part of the problem. It is very rare that you can prove a theory. Most experiments try to disprove the theory. If, after suitable attempts, nobody has disproven the theory, we may take a certain level of confidence that it is correct.
To prove a theory, you generally need to demonstrate that it works in all cases. To disprove it, you need just one case where it fails.
Unfortunately, it is hard to nail down specific components of CAGW to test. e.g.
If, by year X, [some measure of temperature ] is not Y then CAGW has failed.
If, by year Q, sea level at place R is not more than S, then CAGW has failed.
etc.
We need statements like that to attempt to falsify.
There is just too many errors in your comment to correct.
Here is why:
100,000 rem/10hrs=10,000 rem/hr ==>This will cause you to fall down and do the chicken(dead)
100,000 rem/ 2629746000 Hours(300000 Years)=0.000026 rem/hr=26 micro rem/hr==>no biological damage detectable in man (dancing, singing and laughing).
Rem is abbreviation for roentgen-equivalent-man. It is the tissue (cellular) damage in man caused by the equivalent ionizing deposition of 1 roentgen gamma or x-ray energy if you prefer.
Background radiation is about 300 millirem/yr or 0.034 millirem/hr or 34 microrem/hr
Seems like, you may be trashing science. GK
FredT,
Byrne thinks that the CERN experiments are designed to work out if greenhouse gases are affecting climate, and that their ambiguity means that we still don’t know if there is a greenhouse effect
Byrne: “The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse
gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not synonymous with ‘global warming’.
Greenhouse gas emissions alone would have a tendency to cause ‘global warming’ but, for instance, that warming effect could be canceled out by negative feedback effects and the observed warming since say 1850 due to unrelated factors– who knows?
Byrne: “..I’ve brought up the CERN experiment not to debunk the positions of one side or the other in the global warming debate, but to illustrate the uncertainty of science, especially how one discovery leads only to more questions, further uncertainty and deeper research. That especially includes climate science, whose variables are so numerous and complex that it takes a supercomputer to try to model the climate…”.
Sounds reasonable to me.
The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence. On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn’t make one “anti-science” or a “denier.” It’s just the give and take of science.
———–
This quote from the article shows that Byrne does not understand the significance of the CLOUD experiment.
Or the position of climate skeptics with respect to this experiment.
@FredT says:
August 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm
“RockyRoad, You do realise that sub 100 nanometer sized aerosols are even more ‘trace’ than ‘trace greenhouse gases’. How could something so small possibly make a difference to global climate?”
You don’t know how clouds can impact weather, warming or cooling all depending, and therefor climate? Hah, that’s a bit steep for someone complaining over other people not knowing the science. :p
HankH says:
August 30, 2011 at 5:39 pm
>…The fact is the CERN experiment confirms the cosmic ray connection to the creation of nucleation mode aerosols (particles While it is stated that the aerosols are too small to directly result in cloud nucleation, what isn’t stated is to what degree the created aerosols will coagulate such that they transform into particles that can participate in cloud nucleation as it is well known that aerosols of this size will coagulate into larger particles and some 80% of nucleation mode aerosols are soluble (hygroscopic – capable of participating in cloud nucleation).
All cloud particles start of as molecules, usually of H2S and it is ridiculous for them to say ‘they are too small’. Good grief.
>To say they’re too small to create clouds, while it may be true, avoids having to draw attention to the fact that nucleation mode aerosols do mix, bind, and grow into larger particles capable of doing so.
It is not true they are ‘too small’. Those are the weasel words they used to try to get away from the fact that clouds are far more important than CO2 in temperature regulation. CCN are what rain drops are made of. Crikey what are they trying to foist on an ignorant public?
It is a fact that CCN created by GCR’s in air are smaller than CCN’s formed in supersaturated air triggered by a molecule or dust particle. It is for that very reason they are MORE influential than regular CCN’s. They are slightly charged electrically and gently avoid each other so they take longer to agglomerate. The consequance is that clouds of GCR-CCN’s last longer and reflect more light for more hours before becoming big drops and falling. In other words, GRC-induced CCN’s have more influence per particle than ‘natural’ ones. There is a paper around dealing with this.
>CERN does well to stick to stating what they discovered and not extrapolate fodder for the AGW debate.
Exactly.
>They’re already facing significant loss of funding and don’t need to pour gas (petrol for the good folks across the pond) on the funding fire.
That is why they said they need big funding for 5 years to investigate the possiblity that this GRC-CCN business night lead to something that might have an influence on the climate, not that it will displace CO2 as the major influence on temperature, of course. Rent seeking.
I prefer the term “corruption deniers”. We don’t know for sure which way the long-term temperature trend is going — but we do know which side is doing honest science, and it isn’t the alarmists.
I was accepting their statement that the GCR’s were too small and looking strictly at a secondary mode by which the GCR’s would still participate in cloud or ice crystal nucleation (CCN). So, if I’m understanding your analysis, and it seems to make sense, there exists two modes – direct, which they were quick to underplay, and indirect, which they avoid discussing altogether.
Their strategy to not step on AGW land mines and “innocently” pursue further funding is the savvy approach considering that anything they say beyond what they are already saying can only backfire.
Opposite to “deniers” is “believers” or “members of the AGW congregation”
Mr. G. Karst – Please read my post carefully.
First of all it is your UNDERSTANDING of what I’m trying to communicate which is the problem.
The BIO tissue in a irradiated “meat package” is DEAD MEAT! Thus the co-polymerase enzeme which corrects radiation damage is NOT a work. Thus the accumulated dose effect IS the same, whether that dose is given in 10 hours, 100 hours, or 300,000 years. NOTHING REPAIRS THE DAMAGE. What you have alluded to is the “non-linear response” of biological systems to radiation exposure. A tremendous “sticking point” with regard the application of “Nuclear Power” for the last 50 years. The NRC evaluates dose effects presuming the “linear hypothesis”, i.e., equal effects down to zero dose. FOR LIVING SYSTEMS I regard this as WRONG as you have pointed out in your post. (Point of total agreement…go Nuclear!)
However, AGAIN, I’m refering to the radiation/chemical bond breaking which occurs with every high energy cosmic ray, which (in a static organic compound sample) accumulates with time and IS NOT rectified by “living biological processes”. (Therefore is not dependent on dose rate.)
I stand by what I wrote. It is NOT full of “errors”. It is your assessment (not nothing the nature of accumulated radiation effects on STATIC, non-living systems, versus the effects on LIVING systems) is at the core of this problem. Please try to understand this.
Max Hugoson:
Yes, I am having difficulty understanding what you are actually saying. Perhaps it is because you are using the wrong units. Rem is a biological unit (replaced by sievert; 1 rem = 0.01 Sv) The unit you want is is a measure of the energy deposited in a medium by ionizing radiation per unit mass – the Rad (radiation absorbed dose) (R) replaced by the SI gray (Gy) unit.
At least now we are on the same page, and yes, radiation will chop long chained molecules. If that is what you are saying, sorry. GK
Source:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014900.html