- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The key phrase in the reference above?
"Knutti says the results will probably not affect the most likely projections of warming, as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Our best estimate is probably still the same," he says."
Catch up to the science and get back to me.
Catch up to the science and get back to me.
". . . There are some interesting results here in terms of confirming Svensmark’s ideas, and the experiments (both laboratory and in nature) seem to be well conceived
and executed. . . " :mrgreen:
Um, yeah. So? The work is valid and interesting. There's no vast conspiracy to squash his findings.
But their impact doesn't change the overall problem.
". . . There are some interesting results here in terms of confirming Svensmark’s ideas, and the experiments (both laboratory and in nature) seem to be well conceived
and executed. . . " :mrgreen:
"Knutti says the results will probably not affect the most likely projections of warming, as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Our best estimate is probably still the same," he says."
The relevant quote, again:
Conservative and cautious. Nothing wrong with that at this stage. Others react differently.
Untrained and naive people do that.
Ad hominem is unimpressive.
So are your cut and paste blog links.
I'm sorry the science is difficult for you.
Cut and paste isn't science, nor is it difficult. I have absolutely no judge of how well you understand what you're posting, because when I raise objections or ask questions, you just paste something else.
It's not about me.
It's a debate forum. If I wanted to just read a constant feed from Watts I'd go to his website.
You are embarrassing yourself. The OP presentation of these papers came from Professor Judith Curry's blog.
You're embarassing yourself. You paste something from Watts a dozen times a day.
Not really, no: The theory of Ney (1959), Dickinson (1975) and others that cosmic radiation may effect cloud formation rates is strengthened. It shouldn't be overstated though: It's worth noting firstly that the change in nucleation rates (one or two orders of magnitude) between zero and normal cosmic radiation exposure, as measured by the experiment mentioned in the OP, will obviously be far larger than the comparatively small changes to normal atmospheric CR exposure over time due to solar cycles; and secondly that rates of nucleation for organic or inorganic vapours (~1nm) are only the first step towards cloud condensation nuclei (>50nm) and eventually the formation of cloud droplets themselves.Thus it appears Svensmark's theory strengthens further.
By contrast (as I've noted in the past) even Svensmark himself recognises some degree of correlation between his GCR reconstruction and carbon dioxide, which suggests that even if/to the extent that the climate correlation is valid, good old-fashioned CO2 must still be considered as a contributing cause or enhancer of geological climate changes.
Check out #10. Not bad for a paper published in 2007.
[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during June 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org › ... › Astronomy & GeophysicsAstronomy & Geophysics
Jul 7, 2016 - Features: Henrik Svensmark. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges A&G (2007) 48 (1): 1.18-1.24 doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?