New Research

[Alan Robinson]

I don't know a single person that claims to know for a fact that there are no "higher" beings or purpose.

Similarly, I don't know any person that believes in AGW so much so that they completely discount all natural cycles and other possibilities, there just going on the evidence presented.

Categorising people like this adds nothing but reinforcement to the segregation already prevalent in this debate.

I know quite a few atheists who state categorically there is no God, but then, I have always mixed with people from widely differing backgrounds. Regarding AGW, we are having the very idea stuffed down our throats by state institutions such as Dansk Meteorologisk Institut, whose bills are paid by politicians who want us to get used to the idea the future is electric cars

If you are looking for consensus on AGW, perhaps the public should be provided with convincing argument. For the moment it is lacking, from both sides.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I know quite a few atheists who state categorically there is no God, but then, I have always mixed with people from widely differing backgrounds. Regarding AGW, we are having the very idea stuffed down our throats by state institutions such as Dansk Meteorologisk Institut, whose bills are paid by politicians who want us to get used to the idea the future is electric cars

If you are looking for consensus on AGW, perhaps the public should be provided with convincing argument. For the moment it is lacking, from both sides.

I suppose some might completely deny the existence of "God" in the biblical sense, but I think that might be a discussion best left for another thread.

As for an argument that could result in consensus, some believe we already have a general consensus with the idea that AGW is real, it's just it's severity and capability to override natural cycles that are debated.

It would be very difficult to find one argument that would suit everybody. Some people believe the arguments put forward already are enough to convince them, others are still waiting for one they deem adequate, and then you have all levels in between.

To get total agreement on all aspects of this climate change debate across the entire scientific community and public, is practically impossible in my opinion in my opinion.

[Gray-Wolf]

And whilst we have the peace to mull such questions the horn of Africa faces more drought and loss of life. We are both blessed and cursed with such a position all at once (be we 'rich' or 'poor' in our society) IMHO.

Were we living 'hand to mouth' (or at the grace of the developed worlds handouts) we'd not even know the basics of what our 'lifestyle choices' (in the developed world) may be causing to occur across our planet?

I'm convinced that it is us 'Auberge's critters' (that dare look into a future so vile) that are the worst of the bunch?

Those who cannot bare the pain of such a responsibility (as they can feel it) must focus on other explanations for the changes (we have measured us living through) to explain all the hurt that we see in the world day to day.

I hope the whole Gig is messed up and it's really all a mixture of solar and long cycle 'natural'........though this is no solace to those blighted by the times we live through......

Waka, waka.....

Would it not be easier to be a blameless passenger than the hit and run driver?

Edited August 28, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest]

Natural cycles or global warming caused through man's activities? - quite honestly I just dont know though I suspect it is a bit of both.

However as a precaution we should try to limit all pollutant's going into the atmosphere as much as possible since it is not only global warming at stake but our health as well especially from respiratory diseases.

As it is oil and gas reserves are finite and it would be beneficial to develop alternative sources of power and to have these well advanced by the time these carbon fuels start to run out alogether. We won't lose anything by this but it is possible we could leave a hell of a legacy for our children and grandchildren should we get it wrong.

Edited August 29, 2011 by mike Meehan

[Iceni]

I've just watched this series of 6 videos on Svensmark and his work…

First impressions? Total shock at his personable and practical persona. I'd heard about him and his work many years ago, but imagined he was some sort of elderly quack mad scientist type with a crackpot theory to peddle. Why would I have formed that impression, I've been wondering… has he been demonized? I think so. If you can't attack the science, attack the man.

However, it wasn't until I got to the third video of the series,

before I realised the depth of antagonism he'd provoked — watch at 7:20 when he's giving a seminar. Sir John Mason, director of the UK MetO stands up visibly angry and harangues Dr Svensmark like a head prefect ludicrously demanding that his experiments on cloud nucleation should never even take place! Unbelievable, not very scientific and very shaming for the MetO. Rather like the Pope storming into Galileo's cell and confiscating his telescope.

Anyway, watch and enjoy the videos, they last about 10 minutes each.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Iceni

[Alan Robinson]

I've just watched this series of 6 videos on Svensmark and his work…

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=player_embedded

First impressions? Total shock at his personable and practical persona. I'd heard about him and his work many years ago, but imagined he was some sort of elderly quack mad scientist type with a crackpot theory to peddle. Why would I have formed that impression, I've been wondering… has he been demonized? I think so. If you can't attack the science, attack the man.

However, it wasn't until I got to the third video of the series,

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsEsFFIJQIY&feature=player_embedded

before I realised the depth of antagonism he'd provoked — watch at 7:20 when he's giving a seminar. Sir John Mason, director of the UK MetO stands up visibly angry and harangues Dr Svensmark like a head prefect ludicrously demanding that his experiments on cloud nucleation should never even take place! Unbelievable, not very scientific and very shaming for the MetO. Rather like the Pope storming into Galileo's cell and confiscating his telescope.

Anyway, watch and enjoy the videos, they last about 10 minutes each.

The Technical University of Denmark are certainly no mugs, and you are quite right about Mason, who ought to be ashamed of himself for such outrageous conduct in public. This whole business strengthens my suspicion that politicians have eagerly encouraged the AGW debate to prepare us all for unavoidable and unpleasant changes to our lifestyle due to peak oil, our Mickey Mouse money system, and gross over-population. Svensmark's work hardly supports the idea that burning fossil fuels is the sole cause of climate change, which is what politicians want(ed) us to believe.

I don't say that our CO2 emmisions are immaterial, but it is incredible that Svensmark's research should be so vehemently opposed.

[4wd]

It certainly shows the current 'position' of the Met Office and much Climate Science all too well.

Debate or study which does not support consensus position is jumped on with religious zeal.

It is quite disturbing things have got to this stage by infiltration of eco-activists into powerful positions.

[Methuselah]

Why all the vehemence, about a theory that says nothing at all about GHG radiative forcing?

Because, at one level, the whole debate has been hijacked by two, diametrically opposed, major industrial concerns: those afraid that change will eventually undermine their fossil fuel-based monopolies, and those wanting to make millions out of providing 'alternatives', such as carbon sequestration...And, IMO, both these camps have only one interest in mind: their (especially short-term) respective profits...

Anyhoo, on the subject of the CR-cloud interaction, I can't understand why the theory is generating so much hot air. It seems like a perfectly valid attempt at explaining some of Nature's previous excursions away from the norm. Excursions which were nothing to do with man-made GHGs!

[Guest]

Do we have a video of the actual experiment being conducted?

[Iceni]

Why all the vehemence, about a theory that says nothing at all about GHG radiative forcing?

Because, at one level, the whole debate has been hijacked by two, diametrically opposed, major industrial concerns: those afraid that change will eventually undermine their fossil fuel-based monopolies, and those wanting to make millions out of providing 'alternatives', such as carbon sequestration...And, IMO, both these camps have only one interest in mind: their (especially short-term) respective profits...

Anyhoo, on the subject of the CR-cloud interaction, I can't understand why the theory is generating so much hot air. It seems like a perfectly valid attempt at explaining some of Nature's previous excursions away from the norm. Excursions which were nothing to do with man-made GHGs!

None so blind who will not see.

[VillagePlank]

I find many parallels between the trichotomy of warmers, deniers and skeptics on the one hand, and the silly trichotomy of people with faith, atheists, and agnostics.

The fact is neither atheism nor theism build upon proof, and both are a matter of belief. Agnostics on the other hand say simply that nothing is known, or is likely to be known about god(s). Apply this to climate and environment;

Believer; it is our fault the world is warming.

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; we can't say anything conclusive given the information on hand.

Believer; irreperable damage is being done, and it is all because of us

Atheist; no it isn't, and by the way the climate has been both hotter and cooler in the past than it is now

Agnostic; indications are it has been warmer and cooler in the past, but we know too little to be dogmatic

Believer; CO2 put out by us is causing the atmosphere to heat gradually

Atheist; no it isn't

Agnostic; it is, but we don't know exactly how significant that warming is, because we do not understand other natural processes.

Need I continue? I am firmly in the agnostic camp, and - so I believe - is Jethro.

Oddly enough, in the heated debate over religion and atheism, people like Prof Dawkins have the nerve to claim that agnostics are just a wishy-washy kind of atheist. I should hate to think that in the climate debate, those promoting the AGW argument claim that skeptics are in fact deniers.

'Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable' http://en.wikipedia....iki/Agnosticism

Assuming that's what you mean (?) you must also be of the belief that you cannot know whether Zeus is a god and Santa Claus really does deliver presents to children. That my cat really is tortured under the Beech tree at the end of my garden by little pixies.

Frankly - the notion of agnosticism is absurd. So is atheism and theism in my view. Atheists spend their life - effectively - harping on about how something doesn't exist because the evidence tells them so. Well, I can't spend my life worrying about whether or not a teapot really does orbit the earth, or whether or not it's turtles all the way down.

I abhor the theist view that I will burn in hell if I don't fall to my knees and worship in exactly the same way that an atheist will make me out to be the village idiot (VillagePlank!) because I can't subscribe to their view either. Both are equally as repulsive.

But I can't be an agnostic either - since it makes no logical sense. These people will have you believe that you can either be dead or alive, atheist or theist - agnosticism is an attempt to find the middle ground, and it's intellectually lazy - since if you really have the time to contemplate such matters, then, surely, you must have come to a view - the view that Zeus really didn't rule Ancient Greece or that God(s) do exist in which case you need to pick one (or more)

Sadly, I don't have much time, so I am left with apatheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism. My view is when these silly little childish arguments about the existence or otherwise of metaphysical beings is over, I won't have to categorise myself as anything.

And I can just call myself 'human'.

Oh and by the way - the scientific method/scientific treatise says, almost explicitly, that everything is ultimately knowable, so agnosticism and science are polar opposites. Science says all things are knowable, agnosticism says (at least) some things are unknowable.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Sparticle

[Alan Robinson]

'Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable' http://en.wikipedia....iki/Agnosticism

Fine.

My Pocket Oxford Dictionary states as follow:

Gnostic, adjective, having esoteric spiritual knowledge.

Agnostic, noun, one who holds that nothing is or is likely to be known of a God or anything other than material phenomena (from Greek, not gnostic)

We can thank the ancient Greeks for a lot, but not for inventing sophism. I think I'll stick with my trusty Pocket Oxford and give Wikipedia a miss this time round.

As far as science being capable of knowing all there is to know, I'd say that is a very presumtious position to take. In any case, philosophy has debated knowledge for 2,500 years, and still there is no consensus over what constitutes knowledge. With all respect, I'd say claiming science can know everything is absurd.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Guest]

Fine.

My Pocket Oxford Dictionary states as follow:

Gnostic, adjective, having esoteric spiritual knowledge.

Agnostic, noun, one who holds that nothing is or is likely to be known of a God or anything other than material phenomena (from Greek, not gnostic)

We can thank the ancient Greeks for a lot, but not for inventing sophism. I think I'll stick with my trusty Pocket Oxford and give Wikipedia a miss this time round.

As far as science being capable of knowing all there is to know, I'd say that is a very presumtious position to take. In any case, philosophy has debated knowledge for 2,500 years, and still there is no consensus over what constitutes knowledge. With all respect, I'd say claiming science can know everything is absurd.

The more we learn, the more we discover what we don't know

[VillagePlank]

I'd say claiming science can know everything is absurd.

Yep - I didn't say that. I said that science says that. So what's the point where we put down our beer-jugs, leave the pub, and say, oh well, it's unachievable. How do you identify such a moment?

[Methuselah]

Yep - I didn't say that. I said that science says that. So what's the point where we put down our beer-jugs, leave the pub, and say, oh well, it's unachievable. How do you identify such a moment?

Doesn't science merely say that everything is in principle knowable? Except of course all what remains beyond any observer's respective event horizon?

It's possible in principle to anylize the earth's core; but would such a feat ever be physically doable? I seriously doubt it! So, things can be knowable and unknowable at the same time, I think...

How do science and philosophy understand such differing frames of reference?

[Alan Robinson]

Yep - I didn't say that. I said that science says that. So what's the point where we put down our beer-jugs, leave the pub, and say, oh well, it's unachievable. How do you identify such a moment?

I didn't write that you put that. I simply put that claiming science can know everything is absurd.

I put down my beer jug after I've had 2 litres of my own pale ale - pubs here don't sell anything I'd imbibe

Identifying important moments is something I have a little experience in. I've had quite a few of what Abraham Maslow called "peak experiences". Not recently mind, the last one was in 2006 I think, when I realised in a kind of rapture it was time for me to stop working and close down my little business. These things come to us in a state of elevated awareness, a bit like North American indians in their sweat tents

[VillagePlank]

I simply put that claiming science can know everything is absurd.

Godels Incompleteness Theorem puts that statement on a strong and mathematical basis.

[Gray-Wolf]

I just think that our 'science' is limited to 'here'? If we indeed have a multiplicity of other 'strings' close by then what of knowing them? If we need deal with overspill from them into our own 'verse' then surely we need know them too for 'all to be scientifically known'?

I'd love to think that science will provide 'all' the answers one day but I doubt whether we will really even frame all the questions?

So I troll around in my own sweet world accepting that I know very little but that I am so very interested in much. It's the old shift from a very 'black and white world' ,in my early adult life, to one of endless grey (with thin slithers of black and white at the peripheries but well out of my personal sight) as I grow older.

My own personal glimpse of a reality so immeasurable (for the human soul alone) leaves me humbled yet content in my ignorence and ,from my own perspective, I hope science at least draws this into the realm of 'knowns' and away from that of 'personal beliefs'.

I'm sure folk would be both nicer (to themselves and all around) and more accepting of the beauties they will never encounter and the horrors they need face.

Maybe we answer enough to slay our own Demons and leave it there?

[Alan Robinson]

So I troll around in my own sweet world accepting that I know very little but that I am so very interested in much.

Most of us are in a degree of awe GW. It seems to me you are a scientist at heart, except you need to learn and respect other people's experiences, provided they have a rational explanation. You might also try investigating and explaining what you yourself have found, and I don't mean other peoples' opinions. I am sure Greenlanders would take you in for a time so you might look around. I can however warn you, if you haven't already been there, you are in for a shock, not only regarding society, but the amount of information we already have on hand about Arctic conditions. It goes way back, not least to Amundsen, who was also an influential member of the Norwegian Polar Institute, just like Jaworowski.

Awe is one thing, humility another.

[knocker]

First global portrait of greenhouse gases emerges from pole-to-pole flights

BOULDER—A three-year series of research flights from the Arctic to the Antarctic has successfully produced an unprecedented portrait of greenhouse gases and particles in the atmosphere, scientists announced today. The far-reaching field project, known as HIPPO, is enabling researchers to generate the first detailed mapping of the global distribution of gases and particles that affect Earth’s climate.

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5291/first-global-portrait-greenhouse-gases-emerges-pole-pole-flights

Mrs T. needn't have wrecked the British coal industry afterall.

Switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate, study indicates.

BOULDER—Although the burning of natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal, a new study concludes that a greater reliance on natural gas would fail to significantly slow down climate change.

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5292/switching-coal-natural-gas-would-do-little-global-climate-study-indicates

[Cloudman]

I've just watched this series of 6 videos on Svensmark and his work…

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=player_embedded

First impressions? Total shock at his personable and practical persona. I'd heard about him and his work many years ago, but imagined he was some sort of elderly quack mad scientist type with a crackpot theory to peddle. Why would I have formed that impression, I've been wondering… has he been demonized? I think so. If you can't attack the science, attack the man.

However, it wasn't until I got to the third video of the series,

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsEsFFIJQIY&feature=player_embedded

before I realised the depth of antagonism he'd provoked — watch at 7:20 when he's giving a seminar. Sir John Mason, director of the UK MetO stands up visibly angry and harangues Dr Svensmark like a head prefect ludicrously demanding that his experiments on cloud nucleation should never even take place! Unbelievable, not very scientific and very shaming for the MetO. Rather like the Pope storming into Galileo's cell and confiscating his telescope.

Anyway, watch and enjoy the videos, they last about 10 minutes each.

It is worth saying that Mason retired approximately 23 years ago. He is certainly not Head of the Met Office (he was back in the 70s) In terms of the CERN experiments an excellent talk was given at the European Aerosol Conference in the opening plenary, the main points were:

1. Ammonia is a major regulator of particle nucleation in the atmopshere this is more than an order of magnitiude more important than cosmic rays (which do haver an effect)

2. Ammonai and cosmic rays combined only produce a sulphate nucleation rate which is sveral orders of magnitude too small to explain atmospheric nucleation

3. Small amounts of organic material notably amides are able to bridge this gap between observed and labortatory determined nucleation rates (this is a very new and prliminary result not in th Nature paper)

It should also be added that ther CERN experiments are certainly not opposed by mainstream science they were presented as the opening plenary at this conference but they do tend to suggest that whilst cosmic ray nucleation happens it is not very important certainly in the lower atmosphere.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Cloudman

[knocker]

Deep oceans can mask global warming for decade-long periods

BOULDER -- The planet's deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the "missing heat" during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5364/deep-oceans-can-mask-global-warming-decade-long-periods

[loafer]

Why don't they just measure it and find out instead of creating a model to prove their theory...

I would think excess heat escaping into space (last week's theory) is just as, if not more, likely.

[knocker]

Still searching for the 'lost' carbon.

http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=8587

[knocker]

More on the"Albedo effect".

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Wildfire, insect outbreaks and hurricanes destroy huge amounts of forest every year and increase the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere, but scientists are now learning more about another force that can significantly affect their climate impact.

Researchers conclude in a new study that the albedo effect, which controls the amount of energy reflected back into space, is important in the climatic significance of several types of major forest disturbances.

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/oct/%E2%80%9Calbedo-effect%E2%80%9D-forest-disturbances-can-cause-added-warming-bonus-cooling