It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Looks like another hit to the man made global warming religion. I highly doubt we will see much about this in the MSM. They are just so heavily invested in the new age religion.

www.theregister.co.uk...

CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

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.

Unsurprisingly, it's 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.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I don't whether this pans out or not, but I like tosee all sides of an issue come out. It's inevitable, in my view, that things become political. I don't think it's a mistake that most climate scientists are democrats or independents. Neither do I think ti's a mistake that a majority of democrats believe AGW is god speak. While on the republican side you have widespread opposition. To me, whether there's science here or not science, the issue HAS become political and so, in my view, every science report and speech is suspect. Examine the money flow. Watch who funds who. This issue has become so cluttered that you have to be a political science major.

I do believe, however, that CO2 has an effect in the atmosphere. I'm just unsure about the details. I don't have the knowledge of climate to make a conclusion. But I do realize many democrats are not being reasonable about it and swallow it all blindly. And many have invested money, so it's financial now. For democrats, more than anyone else, it's a religion and an income.
edit on 26-8-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Global warming is different from climate change and the climate models are still in the process of being researched. The only thing known for certainty is that the earth is warming pretty rapidly compared to past historical data.

What the reasons are for this, whether it's caused by man or nature, and what effect it will gave on global climate have not been figured out yet.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


How can you say that when the temp has dropped the past 10 years ?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Global average temperatures. No one debates that this is rising, really nothing more to it than taking temps around the world and comparing it to samples from the past. However when they start saying why it's happening or what it's effects will be is where the guessing game starts.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

Never mind. I'm not getting into this....
edit on 8/26/2011 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by bigyin
 


Global average temperatures. No one debates that this is rising, really nothing more to it than taking temps around the world and comparing it to samples from the past. However when they start saying why it's happening or what it's effects will be is where the guessing game starts.


Are those the temps taken by thermometers that are placed next to A/C units and on blacktop parking lots?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Want me to start throwing all the proof at you or would you prefer to quitely go research it yourself before I embarrass you for all to see?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gannicus

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by bigyin
 


Global average temperatures. No one debates that this is rising, really nothing more to it than taking temps around the world and comparing it to samples from the past. However when they start saying why it's happening or what it's effects will be is where the guessing game starts.


Are those the temps taken by thermometers that are placed next to A/C units and on blacktop parking lots?


Wow you guys are rather clueless how they work. Any stations that take temps used in studies of average temperature are compared by satellite. If there is a station located in populated areas it is compared to urban areas than the temp will be adjusted to account for any possible human effects on the reading.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
This is what I've been waiting for coming from CERN. Not only have I been waiting for this, but it also backs up what I currently thought. The Climate Models are wrong. I have a feeling as more experiments take place it will paint a clearer picture that Humans have no effect on climate.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the AGW crowd are going to spin this.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The whole purpose for "Global Warming" was for Goverment to come in and take control of supposed industries that are contributing to the warming. Allowing the goverment into more power. Much like how the current goverment came in to rescue the auto industry, the health industry(obama care), the banking industry, etc. They want control of everything, and power over everyone. Its a simple concept. But so many fail to recognize the true motivation behind a fiction based science.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Timing
 


You may very well be right that humans have no effect on climate change. There simply haven't been enough studies to determine this yet. Personally I don't think we've had much of an impact either.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

the global warming scam is soon to be debunked by nature herself ... the epic cooling cycle has already begun and some scientists are starting to recognize it ... ever heard of IRD studies?
Kro, you really should read more.


Old Dominion Univ
The last 10,000 years of geological history are referred to as the Holocene Era. During that time, global climate has been relatively stable, with swings from warmer temperatures to cooler and back again. On average, however, there has not been the kind of extreme climate oscillation that has in the distant past led to periods of glaciation. Nevertheless, Earth is overdue for a cold snap. Close examination of the way ice is presently traveling in ocean water, from frigid to warmer regions of the globe, suggests that the mechanisms for widespread planetary cooling may once again be engaging.

The process of ice rafting is intimately connected to temperature changes on global and regional scales. The physical movement of excessive amounts of ice from polar regions to lower latitudes by shifting ocean currents can lead to substantially lower temperatures.

That is, to understand the future, at least in terms of climate, one must understand the past. Any computer model designed to predict future climate change such as greenhouse gas-induced global warming must also reproduce the reconstructed past changes of ice drift in order to be considered reliable. Ice rafting is not just a passive recorder of past surface-ocean circulation, but also actively influences and changes present ocean circulation as well.

gotta love the GW 'science' that builds the model first, then manipulates the data to fit ... pseudoscience



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Well if a cooling cycle begins that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that since the 1920's roughly the temperature has been spiking generally upwards.

What's your point?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
[more

Seriously your basing your temperature readings going back since the 1920s? You do realize the Earth is a helluva alot older than that right? And that there was no way to accurately determine the temperature much before then besides going outside and saying 'gee its hot today'. So your telling me your model is using VERY incomplete data by using 100 years out of 4.6 billion years.

I would assume we are in a massive cooling phase since the planet probably started out as a hot ball of gas and rock and now we are at moderately stable conditions by comparison. And thats using a much more complete set of data than just a bit at the 'current time'

I think you should re-consider your position before you make yourself look stupid, especially making threats such as that towards other members.

Oh yeah, and how much do you think the oceans play in the global warming/climate shift equation. I would posit that the Oceans have a greater effect on overall temperature than CO2 considering the Earth is made up of 2/3rds water. Now tell me how much it would take for the human species to elevate the water temperature at all? Almost zero, however the sun accounts for the most significant rise and fall of oceanic temperatures.

Please address the matter of the Ocean and its effect on warming or cooling and please use more accurate data to relay your information, other than just 100 years worth of temperature readings.

Also, please incorporate how us Humans are also responsible for the oddly similar rise in temperature across our Solar System. Seems those super scientists at CERN might actually be reaffirming the whole 'Sun is more responsible than people aspect'


As a side note, I do think humans are responsible for negatively effecting the environment, mainly by toxic release of chemicals into the atmosphere and waters, as well as littering on a large scale basis....just not buying into the whole we caused global warming tactic
edit on 26-8-2011 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

my point is as stated ... pseudoscience is useless ... but apparently, it's all that these 'global warming' advocates have ... yourself included.

also, where you and many others are concerned ... what is with the obsession y'all project that the 1920s is some kind of pivotal point in history ??? where does that come from ?

edit on 26-8-2011 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I have no agenda I have only said that the temperature has been rising steadily, higher that past occasions, recently. Nobody can argue that.

What's happened in past history or if it contiues was never something I commented on and wasn't my point.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Sorry Kro32, my post was a little on the aggressive side, i apologize.

I would like to see someone who advocates the current Al Gore global warming scam address the small points that i brought up concerning it being a man-made effect or Solar effect



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gannicus
 


Climate change is inevitable, however, we are only just starting to understand the relationships with nature herself and how "IT" works. Gonna get flak for this but whatever. Irritates me when people say, we are not causing global warming. We are in an indirect way. Yes CO2 is a natural occurence, however, burning of fossil fuels is not natural. Wild fires are a natural occurence yes, but that is natural cycle. We as humans burning fossil fuels, creating all these different types of carbons, petroleums, nuclear radiation, is all a foreign body, as far as nature sees it, from my view point. We have not been monitoring anything for any length of time to come up with absolute models or forecasts for anything. Ever watch the weather channel?? Yep, only sometimes. I digress. We as a human species are the only exsisting organism on this planet who is not working in a natural rythem. We constantly manipulate our environment and have no regard for possible future outcomes of the actions, which can't be predicted, because of lack of evidence through research. Im not saying that we are the cause but I can say with certain affinity that we are speeding it up.
Tech



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


Combination effect. Yes the sun plays a role, however put that into conjuntion with the un natural increase in CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere, with the rise in water levels which help with the absorbtion of heat from the sun. Im not on either side, just trying to account for all the facts. Pseudo science should have some bearing on theories as hard physical evidence. The more we find out the more questions arise. Pseudo science is good, allowing for different view points for research and interpretation, and as our current understanding of how everything works, we are far off the mark. So saying pseudo science is garbage is ignorant in itself.
2cents
Tech



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join