'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

[Dorts]

The first results of the Cern Lab's 'CLOUD' experiment have just been published in Nature. This shows that cosmic rays are the major component in the formation of clouds and therefore the temperature of our planet.

I quote from a press release- 'This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.'
This is a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.'
'Climate models will need to be substantially revised.'
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Dorts -

Interesting to say the least! I can think of many questions here but as you know I regard Nature and Science as damn' near gospel. Could you give a link to the paper in Nature?

Ric

[Dorts]

Ric, as far as I'm aware there is no link to the Nature paper, (came out today I believe, and masses about it on the blogs), but there are links to comments and to a Cern press release.
I'll try and put them up shortly. (I'm just settling down to watch my team play!).
Dorts.

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Dorts

I quote from a press release- 'This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.'
This is a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.'

Which press release was that then? Not one from CERN, since their press release says nothing of the sort. It comes from an article in 'The Register' by Andrew Orlowski, who has no connection with CERN.

Originally Posted by Dorts

'Climate models will need to be substantially revised.'

Actually, the quote from the press release is "... the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised", which is not the same thing.

For a discussion of the significance of the 'CLOUD' study, see here. Essentially, if you think this work supports the view that the sun is driving climate change, think again.

The Nature article is here, and the original CERN press release is here

[STYRBJORN]

My immediate reaction to reading the discussion was paper was that it states that the main atmospheric gas contributing to aerosol formation is sulphuric acid which forms as a result of emission of sulphur dioxide from power stations - acid rain. It thus increases the probability that climate change is anthropogenic.

Shot yourself in the foot there Dorts.

I do wish the font allowed sub- and super-script!

[Dorts]

Here's the Press Release from Cern, clearly stating that:
"it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised."

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/Press...ng_29JUL11.pdf

And Nature News:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108....2011.504.html

What the CLOUD experiment has shown is that uncertainty over the role of clouds in the AGW hypothesis is much, much greater than previously thought and that once accounted for, and that the science is far from being 'settled'.

The 'Nature' paper was submitted nearly a year ago, so there is no doubt much more to come.

By the way Ric, I see no bullet in my foot!
Dorts.

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Dorts

Here's the Press Release from Cern, clearly stating that:
"it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised."

Yes, that's exactly what I wrote. Your original 'quote', however, was different (and misleading):

Originally Posted by Dorts

'Climate models will need to be substantially revised.'

The use of misleading, selective quotations is a key tactic of contrarians (notably creationists), who are less interested in establishing the truth of the matter than in pushing their own agenda, and one should be very wary of people who resort to this.

The 'substantial revision' is to the treatment of aerosols, not to the models generally. The overall effect on the latter may, in fact, be quite minor. In any case, since press releases often overstate the significance of the published work, claims made in the press release are not necessarily a reliable indicator of its true importance.

Originally Posted by Dorts

What the CLOUD experiment has shown is that uncertainty over the role of clouds in the AGW hypothesis is much, much greater than previously thought and that once accounted for, and that the science is far from being 'settled'.

Actually, it doesn't. This experiment doesn't lend any support to the "it's not CO2, it's the sun" camp of climate 'scepticism'.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by King Edward

Yes, that's exactly what I wrote. Your original 'quote', however, was different (and misleading):
The use of misleading, selective quotations is a key tactic of contrarians (notably creationists), who are less interested in establishing the truth of the matter than in pushing their own agenda, and one should be very wary of people who resort to this.
The 'substantial revision' is to the treatment of aerosols, not to the models generally. The overall effect on the latter may, in fact, be quite minor. In any case, since press releases often overstate the significance of the published work, claims made in the press release are not necessarily a reliable indicator of its true importance.
Actually, it doesn't. This experiment doesn't lend any support to the "it's not CO2, it's the sun" camp of climate 'scepticism'.

As yet there is no empirical evidence that shows exactly what effect Co2 has on our climate, with virtually everything being based on models.

What this latest study begins to show is that this is yet another factor that that may have to be considered before any claim that the 'science is settled' can be taken seriously.

To suggest that anyone that believes the science isn't settled is probably a creationist is ludicrous in the extreme, and a rather un-necessary comment which adds nothing to any debate.
Dorts.

[King Edward]

Seriously, why don't you reply to what people have actually written rather than to what you think they have written. I did not say that you or any other 'climate sceptics' were creationists, but that the misleading use of selective quotations was a tactic common to both.

The science in relation to the fact that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will warm the climate has, in fact, been settled decades ago. There is a certain amount of uncertainty about the exact magnitude of the effect, particularly in relation to the various feedback mechanisms (including aerosols and clouds), but the basic facts are well accepted. The idea that changes in the activity of the sun are responsible for more than a small fraction of the current warming has no scientific basis whatsoever.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Dorts

By the way Ric, I see no bullet in my foot!
Dorts.

You look funny with that arrow sticking out of your wellie though. Dorts, no scientist worth the name would claim his science is "finished". The science of evolution is in a continual state of modification. The sophistication of today's molecular genetics, or the predictive capability of computer modelling, are far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. Yet no rational person doubts the basic mechanism of selection acting on variation. By the same token, no reputable climate scientist would clain that the present science is the last word in explanation. Nor would she say that because we cannot give all the details of how it happens, anthropogenic causation of climate change must be a false hypothesis.

Darwin thought that all evolution was gradual; we now know that it can occur with startling rapidity. Darwin's mistake does not invalidate evolution. It may prove to be the case that aerosol formation plays a major role in climate warming. That does not invaldate the evidence for such warming.

Ric