Video: Are Cosmic Rays Causing Global Warming?

Reading is hard

ScienceSeptember 2011 • Views: 27,541

This excellent video by “potholer54” (the YouTube screen name for writer Peter Hadfield) is for all those right wingers who keep emailing and showing up in LGF comments gloating about a paper from CERN that “totally destroys the myth of global warming” (to quote one of more than a dozen emails I’ve received in the past few weeks).

This meme has now achieved “article of faith” status in the wingnut climate change denying blogosphere; we’ve had a front page article and several LGF Pages debunking it, but of course the wingers never read any of that stuff; they just keep gloating away, smug and secure and invincibly ignorant. A few days ago, we even had the communications director of the right wing propaganda factory known as the Heartland Institute, Jim Lakely, register an LGF account and bring up the CERN study in one of his first comments.

In fact, as Hadfield amusingly points out in the video, these people never even read the scientific papers about which they claim to know everything. I’m sure I haven’t received the last all-caps email on this subject yet.

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

90 comments

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:10:46pm

Of note: Delingpole was just recently on the Alex Jones show as a guest, rambling about the New World Order, and the proprietor of "Natural News" is a regular guest of and occasional fill-in host for Alex Jones.

Targetpractice Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:29:19pm

Seriously, how bad do things have to get before the denial crowd start to acknowledge that this "myth" presents a very real danger to the future of our species as a whole? How big a body count does it have to rack up before it ceases to be something that "scientists are making up"?

I'm too young to have been around when people got the memo that cigarette smoking was bad for you, but I've read enough to realize that this is like so much of a rerun. Scientists of every stripe were out there, year after year, sending up the flag and declaring that smoking was a very real danger and needed to be tackled. And yet, the public yawned and listened to the handful of scientists funded by the cigarette companies, who assured folks that there's no link between smoking and lung cancer, that it's actually beneficial to smoke, and that those who were sounding the alarm were being paid to do so.

laZardo Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:31:32pm

re: #2 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Seriously, how bad do things have to get before the denial crowd start to acknowledge that this "myth" presents a very real danger to the future of our species as a whole? How big a body count does it have to rack up before it ceases to be something that "scientists are making up"?

I'm too young to have been around when people got the memo that cigarette smoking was bad for you, but I've read enough to realize that this is like so much of a rerun. Scientists of every stripe were out there, year after year, sending up the flag and declaring that smoking was a very real danger and needed to be tackled. And yet, the public yawned and listened to the handful of scientists funded by the cigarette companies, who assured folks that there's no link between smoking and lung cancer, that it's actually beneficial to smoke, and that those who were sounding the alarm were being paid to do so.

I don't think they'll have to worry about it. They'll probably be dead of old age by the time the worst shit happens.

dragonfire1981 Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:35:19pm

I think actually blew a denier's mind once by suggesting God was causing global warming.

I said: "Well what if God is causing global warming to happen as part of his greater plan for humanity?"

The guy's head darned near exploded.

jaunte Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:35:31pm

Nature, Aug 24:

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.
[Link: www.nature.com...]

MSNBC, Aug. 24:

The research doesn't call into question the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, Kirkby emphasized, but rather refines one facet of the research. Climate models currently predict an average global temperature increase of 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

The data generated by the CLOUD experiment (CLOUD stands for "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") will feed into global models of aerosol formation, Kirkby said, which in turn will carry into global climate models.

"It's part of the jigsaw puzzle, and you could say it adds to the understanding of the big picture," he said. "But it in no way disproves the other pieces."

MSNBC Video

OMG, it's a coordinated media coverup/suppression!

b_sharp Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:46:09pm

Cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds under certain circumstances are a positive feedback, under other conditions are a negative feedback, however, both models and observations show the positive feedbacks override the negative feedbacks. This research does nothing to change that, it only gives an additional source of clouds. This may mean the models develop too few clouds but the ratio of positive to negative feedbacks is not changed.

So where does this show cosmic rays are causing warming? Where is the physical evidence that variation in cosmic rays leads to variation in global temps?

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:46:17pm

re: #5 jaunte

Nature, Aug 24:

MSNBC, Aug. 24:

OMG, it's a coordinated media coverup/suppression!

Jim Lakely is on the case.

Political Atheist Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:48:53pm

re: #6 b_sharp

If cloud formation is a critical facet, the airliners that fly so much need to be looked at. There were some studies on that after 9/11 looking at cloud cover during the long grounding of air traffic. NOVA did a good piece on contrails and climate.

Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:53:44pm

re: #6 b_sharp

Cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds under certain circumstances are a positive feedback, under other conditions are a negative feedback, however, both models and observations show the positive feedbacks override the negative feedbacks. This research does nothing to change that, it only gives an additional source of clouds. This may mean the models develop too few clouds but the ratio of positive to negative feedbacks is not changed.

So where does this show cosmic rays are causing warming? Where is the physical evidence that variation in cosmic rays leads to variation in global temps?

Actually, it doesn't even say that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. The study comes to the conclusion that cosmic rays can cause "nucleation" of particles in the atmosphere, which could potentially lead to cloud seeding if there's enough of it. But they specifically state that their experiment produced only very small amounts of nucleation, and they don't know what amount would be necessary to produce clouds.

TedStriker Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:54:07pm

re: #4 dragonfire1981

I think actually blew a denier's mind once by suggesting God was causing global warming.

I said: "Well what if God is causing global warming to happen as part of his greater plan for humanity?"

The guy's head darned near exploded.

Youtube Video

Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:57:03pm

If anyone wants to read this paper, you can rent it for $3.99 here:

[Link: www.deepdyve.com...]

Turkey Jihad Sun, Sep 18, 2011 12:59:07pm

So tens of thousands of scientists all over the world, staking their reputations and professional credibility have all gone "grassy knoll" and made the whole thing up? Makes sense to me.
//

jaunte Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:01:41pm

re: #7 000G

Who to believe, climate scientists, or the former business editor of Pool & Spa News? It's a real quandary.

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:28:21pm

I finished another good book: The Inquisition of Climate Science.

You can brain it in a short day at 189 pages. It summarizes the last few years of BS foisted upon us by Lakely and his crew, heavily footnoted, summarized, etc.

The Denier Zombies keep coming in droves though.

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:35:21pm

And a Denier Zombie has shown up in the book review:

If not for Climategate the world would not be aware of the fact that a core group of activist climate scientists intentionaly Â«hide the declineÂ» of their IPCC temp data in order to make the false claim that the earth's temp was increasing consistent with their global warming computer models. Anyone who pointed out their obvious deception was villified and smeared as there was no logical way they could honestly explain their dishonest manipulation of the data. Moreover the Optimum Medieval Warming Period (from the 9th to 13th century where temps were warmer than todays) has never been fully explained by the AGW true belivers. Most recently, the CERN scientists have confirmed that cosmic rays influence clouds that impact global temps which HAVE NOT been factered into the AGW computer models. So the bottom line is the so called AGW Â«scienceÂ» is far from settled. Instead of smearing the AGW skeptics. the IPCC climate Â«scientistsÂ» should start acting like real scientists and use the scientic method to prove their AGW theories instead of computer models that use false data to Â«proveÂ» their theories.

Pretty sure the moron didn't read the book, didn't understand it, or outright denied the review of Climategate.

And Lakely provides the concurrent narrative of the same mindless rhetoric but in a nicer suit with a bowtie, providing a thin sheen of credibility over the rotting stench of intellectual dishonesty.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:45:42pm

Hm, cosmic rays...hey, were those anything like the space beams that brought down the twin towers? /haarp makes my life miserable!

Interesting Times Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:45:45pm

re: #15 BigPapa

Oh good grief, will they never get new material? 9_9 Though I like this term for people who keep regurgitating the cosmic ray crap: ConCERN Trolls

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:50:00pm

Next up is Naomi Oreskes/Erik Conway's Merchants of Doubt.

mikec6666 Sun, Sep 18, 2011 1:51:42pm

Roundabout confirmation of that sort is known as epistemic closure. More simply, starting with one idea, everyone else adds their idea, based on the original idea, with no input from the outside (i.e. the reality/fact based world). It's a perfect feedback loop.

Jimmi the Grey Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:14:49pm

Why was the 1% doctrine enough to invade a foreign nation, but not enough to prepare for the affects of changing climates?

allegro Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:16:51pm

re: #20 Jimmi the Grey

Because shut up, that's why.

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:17:18pm

re: #12 Kid A

So tens of thousands of scientists all over the world, staking their reputations and professional credibility have all gone "grassy knoll" and made the whole thing up? Makes sense to me.
//

Indeed. The staggering amount of unvarnished idiocy required to believe in such a grand scale conspiracy makes the entire 9/11 troofer movement look like super-genius grade Nobel laureates.

palomino Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:21:30pm

re: #20 Jimmi the Grey

Why was the 1% doctrine enough to invade a foreign nation, but not enough to prepare for the affects of changing climates?

Because only things that happen fast (like a terrorist attack) count, ie, need immediate attention. If something happens slowly and gradually, like AGW, then it doesn't matter and someone else can take care of it later. If there is a later.

BongCrodny Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:22:11pm

re: #15 BigPapa

And a Denier Zombie has shown up in the book review:

If not for Climategate the world would not be aware of the fact that a core group of activist climate scientists intentionaly Â«hide the declineÂ» of their IPCC temp data in order to make the false claim that the earth's temp was increasing consistent with their global warming computer models. Anyone who pointed out their obvious deception was villified and smeared as there was no logical way they could honestly explain their dishonest manipulation of the data. Moreover the Optimum Medieval Warming Period (from the 9th to 13th century where temps were warmer than todays) has never been fully explained by the AGW true belivers. Most recently, the CERN scientists have confirmed that cosmic rays influence clouds that impact global temps which HAVE NOT been factered into the AGW computer models. So the bottom line is the so called AGW Â«scienceÂ» is far from settled. Instead of smearing the AGW skeptics. the IPCC climate Â«scientistsÂ» should start acting like real scientists and use the scientic method to prove their AGW theories instead of computer models that use false data to Â«proveÂ» their theories.

Pretty sure the moron didn't read the book, didn't understand it, or outright denied the review of Climategate.

And Lakely provides the concurrent narrative of the same mindless rhetoric but in a nicer suit with a bowtie, providing a thin sheen of credibility over the rotting stench of intellectual dishonesty.

You know what I find really, really weird?

How no matter who's doing the arguing, they always sound the same.

I'd almost be willing to bet there are other posts like that on other science or political, using that same language with those same points in that same order, written by different people.

albusteve Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:41:14pm

re: #24 BongCrodny

You know what I find really, really weird?

How no matter who's doing the arguing, they always sound the same.

I'd almost be willing to bet there are other posts like that on other science or political, using that same language with those same points in that same order, written by different people.

stunning...so what's next?

prairiefire Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:48:09pm

OT ~~ The Foo Fighters fight back against Westboro Baptist bigots in Kansas City:[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

b_sharp Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:50:12pm

re: #25 albusteve

stunning...so what's next?

Steve says he doesn't give a rat's ass.

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:51:15pm

re: #25 albusteve

stunning...so what's next?

Uh... I don't know, you tell me.

Renaissance_Man Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:52:28pm

re: #20 Jimmi the Grey

Why was the 1% doctrine enough to invade a foreign nation, but not enough to prepare for the affects of changing climates?

Because liberals don't like invading foreign nations, so we should do it to stick it to them.

However, liberals like the environment, so we should trash it to stick it to them again.

Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:53:26pm

I don't see a rebuttal from jlakely. Perhaps he is in Church all day today. Maybe tomorrow.

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 2:58:34pm

Yeah, Rogue was trying to push this crap one morning-- it was the first I'd heard of it. The weird part about using this for denial is that the paper I believe explicilty references that the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth has not increased over the past few decades, which it would have had to in order for cosmic rays to produce global warming.

I mean, it's simple. Are cosmic rays-- or any other form of solar radiation-- causing global warming? Well, have they increased during this warming period? No. Well, it's not them, then.

Has CO2 increased? Yep. Would you expect to see warming when CO2 increased? Yep. Is warming occurring in line with CO2 increase? Yep.

What is so fucking hard about that?

BongCrodny Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:02:17pm

re: #25 albusteve

stunning...so what's next?

Well, I expect you'll continue to be a cynical bastard. :-)

albusteve Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:09:05pm

re: #32 BongCrodny

Well, I expect you'll continue to be a cynical bastard. :-)

bashing deniers is fine...so what's next?...you expect them to change their minds?....shouldn't there be a plan B?

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:14:00pm

re: #33 albusteve

bashing deniers is fine...so what's next?...you expect them to change their minds?...shouldn't there be a plan B?

LGF is a little part of Plan A. The cure is to expose them wider and farther, with as much credibility and popular appeal as might be. A lot of LGFs, inter-supporting, will help accomplish what can be accomplished. Once more to the breach, Steve.

lostlakehiker Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:14:13pm

Sadly, the Wall Street Journal is pushing this nonsense. They have an online site titled "the other climate theory", dedicated to gently and cautiously insinuating that this story might well explain the observed changes.

Red Herring Express.

If I toss a penny into the ocean, everybody might die. Why? Because the penny's copper will leach into ocean water. Fish will take up some of that. People eat fish. Copper poisoning is real. Case proved. Except that the effects at each stage are so attenuated that there's no way my penny will make a penny's worth of difference. Same thing with these cosmic rays and climate change. Yes, it's nice to know that cosmic rays can create particles that might, if they aggregated, serve as cloud nucleation centers. But from there, to climate change, is to make a monsoon out of a raindrop. Anyhow, cosmic ray flux shows no definite trend over the past century.

BongCrodny Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:22:32pm

re: #33 albusteve

bashing deniers is fine...so what's next?...you expect them to change their minds?...shouldn't there be a plan B?

I dunno. I'm not sure there's even a Plan A.

Deniers seem to have unlimited dollars to piss away in their attempts to muck up the science; combine that with their army of adherents that will refuse to believe no matter how compelling the evidence and it's a lousy situation all around.

The President's capitulation on the smog standards is further evidence of how the "nope, no problems here!" crowd dominates the conversation.

If we can't have both a sound economy and clean air, what the fuck is the point of capitalism? Lifting people up while practically ensuring there's a marked increase in asthma doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.

lostlakehiker Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:23:05pm

re: #33 albusteve

bashing deniers is fine...so what's next?...you expect them to change their minds?...shouldn't there be a plan B?

Plan B is to advance the science and engineering of green solutions. The perfect win would be if green energy became outright competitive with coal and oil. Those would shortly be abandoned as inferior and expensive sources of electricity, and that would be that.

If, sadly, the laws of physics or our own inventive limitations mean that we absolutely cannot achieve that, then what improvements we do manage will still be very important. If we can bring down the cost of solar by a factor of 2 over the next decade or so, the massive construction of solar energy installations that must eventually come can be twice as massive, in terms of solar energy garnered, for the same price. Ditto for wind.

At the same time, we have to clear away, rather brusquely, all environmental and NIMBY objections to wind and solar. If it means bird kills, or desert lizard displacement, or fractious condemnations of power line easements over private property or state parks or national parks, tough. Priorities must be set. The birds are cute and all, but the survivors will lay a clutch that encounters less competition and they'll recover. Naturally, attention should be paid to minimizing these unfortunate aspects of green energy, but we must keep our eyes firmly on the big picture.

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:27:06pm

re: #36 BongCrodny

I dunno. I'm not sure there's even a Plan A.

Deniers seem to have unlimited dollars to piss away in their attempts to muck up the science; combine that with their army of adherents that will refuse to believe no matter how compelling the evidence and it's a lousy situation all around.

The President's capitulation on the smog standards is further evidence of how the "nope, no problems here!" crowd dominates the conversation.

If we can't have both a sound economy and clean air, what the fuck is the point of capitalism? Lifting people up while practically ensuring there's a marked increase in asthma doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.

Don't know if it's part of Plan A or Plan B, but part of it is working like mad to make sure these Neanderthals don't get elected. Maybe that was Plan 9.

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:27:11pm

re: #36 BongCrodny

The smog standards are not actually a big deal, since they're already reasonably advanced. Or rather, they're a petty aspect. The real way that Obama fucked up on green energy was endorsing corn biodeisel. It was probably political, but that doesn't make it righter.

The GOP is actively terrible on AGW, actively fucking us over, and the Democrats are not doing enough. It's a bad combo. But the GOP are the ones who are spreading disinformation and lies at an amazingly rapid clip.

I really wonder how much they know that they're lying to the American people and how much they are just actual deniers, suspicious and hostile towards scientists, clinging to their 'gut' that those liberal commies have got to be wrong because shut up.

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:28:20pm

re: #37 lostlakehiker

Nah, solar and wind and the rest could compete with coal and other fossil fuels if the true cost of those fuels was put into the equation. Right now, those selling and burning coal and oil to produce energy get away with paying a fraction of the real cost-- the cost of cleanup and environmental damage.

It's only because the market is skewed to benefit those fuels that they're cheaper.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:34:38pm

This one surprised me, btw:

Majorities of all four political groups support funding more research into renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power and providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy efficient vehicles or solar panels.

[Link: environment.yale.edu...]

lostlakehiker Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:37:50pm

re: #36 BongCrodny

I dunno. I'm not sure there's even a Plan A.

Deniers seem to have unlimited dollars to piss away in their attempts to muck up the science; combine that with their army of adherents that will refuse to believe no matter how compelling the evidence and it's a lousy situation all around.

The President's capitulation on the smog standards is further evidence of how the "nope, no problems here!" crowd dominates the conversation.

If we can't have both a sound economy and clean air, what the fuck is the point of capitalism? Lifting people up while practically ensuring there's a marked increase in asthma doesn't sound like a fair trade to me.

We have made enormous progress already in reducing smog. It's not clear that the proposed standards carry benefits commensurate with the downside. It's not as if Obama is a tool of the fossil fuel industries. Maybe he just weighed things.

As to "marked asthma increase", why would you expect a continuation of the status quo with respect to smog to be coupled with a big increase in asthma?

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:41:34pm

re: #42 lostlakehiker

We have made enormous progress already in reducing smog. It's not clear that the proposed standards carry benefits commensurate with the downside. It's not as if Obama is a tool of the fossil fuel industries. Maybe he just weighed things.

As to "marked asthma increase", why would you expect a continuation of the status quo with respect to smog to be coupled with a big increase in asthma?

Pittsburgh had its problems first, and started its solutions first (1950s 'Smoke Control" rules). I've pulled this example out in earlier discussions because it's so basic:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

lostlakehiker Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:43:38pm

re: #40 Obdicut

Nah, solar and wind and the rest could compete with coal and other fossil fuels if the true cost of those fuels was put into the equation. Right now, those selling and burning coal and oil to produce energy get away with paying a fraction of the real cost-- the cost of cleanup and environmental damage.

It's only because the market is skewed to benefit those fuels that they're cheaper.

What I meant was competitive, counting only the costs producers and consumers now see, and not counting long term negative externalities such as the down-the-road price in terms of consequences for the climate.

There is no "cost of cleanup" for CO2 because there is not, will not be, and cannot be any cleanup. CO2 released into the atmosphere cannot be called back. Costs to clean up oil spills, well, BP did have to bear some of that. Costs to clean up the tailings left by truncating mountaintops in WV? There, you have a point. But if only we could get the science and engineering to the point where green wins by any measure, this whole discussion would be moot.

laZardo Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:46:09pm

re: #41 000G

The only reason I can see for any conservative group wanting to fund renewable energy sources is to spite those godless ChiComs across the Pacific.

As it were.

It's good they're trying to fund it, if that report is correct.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:47:30pm

re: #35 lostlakehiker

Sadly, the Wall Street Journal is pushing this nonsense. They have an online site titled "the other climate theory", dedicated to gently and cautiously insinuating that this story might well explain the observed changes.

Red Herring Express.

I love the video interview with the author accompanying the article. How she squirms and stumbles and lies her way through is just amazing to watch!

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:47:37pm

re: #44 lostlakehiker

Yes, there can be cleanup. You can get CO2 out of atmosphere.

Can you please explain why you think you can't?

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:48:29pm

re: #44 lostlakehiker

What I meant was competitive, counting only the costs producers and consumers now see, and not counting long term negative externalities such as the down-the-road price in terms of consequences for the climate.

There is no "cost of cleanup" for CO2 because there is not, will not be, and cannot be any cleanup. CO2 released into the atmosphere cannot be called back. Costs to clean up oil spills, well, BP did have to bear some of that. Costs to clean up the tailings left by truncating mountaintops in WV? There, you have a point. But if only we could get the science and engineering to the point where green wins by any measure, this whole discussion would be moot.

Don't give up on removal completely. It's pricey, and we don't have great tech yet.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:49:36pm

re: #45 laZardo

The only reason I can see for any conservative group wanting to fund renewable energy sources is to spite those godless commie pinkos across the Pacific.

As it were.

It's good they're trying to fund it, if that report is correct.

Hm? That paragraph was from a representative opinion poll, asking self-identified Democrats, Independents, Republicans and Tea Partiers what they thought about certain issues (like environmental policies).

BongCrodny Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:50:16pm

re: #42 lostlakehiker

We have made enormous progress already in reducing smog. It's not clear that the proposed standards carry benefits commensurate with the downside. It's not as if Obama is a tool of the fossil fuel industries. Maybe he just weighed things.

As to "marked asthma increase", why would you expect a continuation of the status quo with respect to smog to be coupled with a big increase in asthma?

Here:

ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2011) — Mount Sinai School of Medicine researchers have found that climate change may lead to more asthma-related health problems in children, and more emergency room (ER) visits in the next decade.

The data, published in the current issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found that changing levels of ozone could lead to a 7.3 percent increase in asthma-related emergency room visits by children, ages 0-17.

If it turns out this prognosis is wrong, I'll be the first to stand on my chair and applaud.

jaunte Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:54:22pm

re: #46 000G

I love the video interview with the author accompanying the article. How she squirms and stumbles and lies her way through is just amazing to watch!

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

The interviewer helpfully sets the tone by mentioning Al Gore up front.

Jimmi the Grey Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:55:07pm

re: #29 Renaissance_Man

Ah, it comes from my misunderstanding the doctrine itself. If there is a 1% chance it'll piss off liberals, then we need to make the effort.

///

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:55:51pm

re: #48 Decatur Deb

Biochar is actually a pretty non-pricey (per unit) way to go about it and has the benefit of being great fertilizer, too. And whichever way you go about it, fast or slow, you're still getting more energy out of it than you put in so you don't have that to worry about.

The main problem is how to apply it to large areas, but that's an engineering challenge that's obviously solvable.

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:58:34pm

re: #53 Obdicut

Biochar is actually a pretty non-pricey (per unit) way to go about it and has the benefit of being great fertilizer, too. And whichever way you go about it, fast or slow, you're still getting more energy out of it than you put in so you don't have that to worry about.

The main problem is how to apply it to large areas, but that's an engineering challenge that's obviously solvable.

It will be a hoot if the planet's prime building material someday is carbon we have learned to scavenge. Then we can create a bidder's market for waste carbon.

Kragar Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:59:19pm

Poverty grows in Rick Perry's Texas

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 3:59:51pm

re: #54 Decatur Deb

I have dreams of that. I mean, carbon nanotubes are pretty amazing and though they're in their infancy now, they're already started to having some incredible uses. So yeah, the next age may very well be the Carbon Age-- if we manage to refocus our wills on science and not the denial, rejection, and smearing of science.

freetoken Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:10:46pm

... gloating about a paper from CERN that “totally destroys the myth of global warming” (to quote one of more than a dozen emails I’ve received in the past few weeks).

One of the characteristics of this sort of campaign, where identical phrases (memes) are repeated (in this case "totally destroys the myth...") is that those who do the repeating by typing in the words don't understand that which they are writing.

It is also characteristic of the creationist mindset to want to re-cast the word "myth", to avoid the real meaning and all the implications therein for their own belief systems.

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:12:51pm

re: #56 Obdicut

I, for one, welcome the Grey Goo.

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:13:36pm

re: #58 Decatur Deb

Yes! Onward and upward to our next devastating environmental mistake! This CO2 one is old and boring already.

Varek Raith Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:14:40pm

re: #58 Decatur Deb

I, for one, welcome the Grey Goo.

So I set them to consume carbon.
Sue me.

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:16:22pm

re: #60 Varek Raith

So I set them to consume carbon.
Sue me.

In a corrupt Imperial Court? I was born in a millenium, but not this millenium.

freetoken Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:17:43pm

I've been intending (yeah... intentions... I know...) to do a big write-up on AGW and why I am so pessimistic about our society - all of human government, not just the US - and the ability to deal with these big problems of our own making. I'm afraid though that it will be a bit of a doomer post so I've been putting it off.

The problem, as I see it, is that H. sapiens as a reactive animal isn't so different from any other primate. We differentiate ourselves (we believe) from the other animals in our ability to (at least minimally) understand "time", and to position past and future as different than the "now", and thus we can plan for the future.

However, a great deal of study into why people make decisions has illustrated that humans strongly discount the future and our decision making process is very strongly weighted by the "now" and the "future" becomes very quickly unimportant as the time horizon moves past a few days.

On top of all of that, the really profound changes in climate will take centuries - especially the changes in the water of the oceans of the world below the surface zone, and the melting of the large ice caps. This is so far beyond the time horizon of any political system that it is not at all surprising that no nation (as a whole) has really taken it seriously.

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:18:40pm

re: #62 freetoken

The thing is, you could use the same line of logic to prove that humans couldn't have done things that they have demonstrably actually done.

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:20:07pm

BBL

freetoken Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:21:41pm

re: #63 Obdicut

The thing is, you could use the same line of logic to prove that humans couldn't have done things that they have demonstrably actually done.

Well, I disagree, but don't have the time now to elaborate. Other large projects in modern America have and relatively near term economic (and thus political) payoff, from the TVA to space program, to the institution of public school systems, etc. All took political capital to accomplish, but all good produce changes in peoples' lives within a few years.

AGW also suffers from the (occasionally contentious) issues of "the commons", and here we have to deal not only with time but the spatial boundaries.

I need to run now... but I will return to this later.

Decatur Deb Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:23:05pm

Swear the damn dog is learning English--we a already have to spell out W-A-L-K. Now I just told my wife I need some exercise, and he started his happydance at the harness hanger. Later.

Obdicut Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:25:16pm

re: #65 freetoken

Other large projects in modern America have and relatively near term economic (and thus political) payoff, from the TVA to space program, to the institution of public school systems, etc. All took political capital to accomplish, but all good produce changes in peoples' lives within a few years.

I'm talking mostly about basic science research, which never has any apparent payoff when it's done and yet we keep plugging away at and making incredible advances.

You're right that most people aren't going to ever change their energy habits or otherwise plan or work around AGW. That's okay. They just have to have the landscape changed so that the only choices available are AGW-friendly, or the only economical choices are.

It's by no means certain we'll succeed, but it's eminently doable. What you're listing is the challenge. It's not an insurmountable one.

Sure is a big 'un, though.

laZardo Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:28:51pm

re: #58 Decatur Deb

I, for one, welcome the Grey Goo.

There is a fetish within the furry community that involves transformation by nanomachines.

Don't ask me how I know this.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:30:01pm

re: #61 Decatur Deb

In a corrupt Imperial Court? I was born in a millenium, but not this millenium.

LOL!

Targetpractice Sun, Sep 18, 2011 4:40:13pm

*Watches a tumbleweed roll by*

Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 18, 2011 6:04:03pm

re: #66 Decatur Deb

Swear the damn dog is learning English--we a already have to spell out W-A-L-K. Now I just told my wife I need some exercise, and he started his happydance at the harness hanger. Later.

You haven't had a dog long, have you?

lostlakehiker Sun, Sep 18, 2011 11:12:08pm

re: #55 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Poverty grows in Rick Perry's Texas

What would you expect? Oh, and by the way, it's not Rick Perry's Texas. The governor of Texas wields less power than most governors, and governors in general don't control their state's poverty rate.

With poverty on the rise in general, and with Texas the annual recipient of some large number of poor immigrants, there is no need of the hypothesis that Rick Perry is the cause, to explain the observation that poverty is on the rise in Texas, as well as in so many other states.

Does anyone suggest that with better leadership, we might have dodged this rainstorm of economic bullets?

It is a mistake to attribute Texas' economy to Perry. Not only is the attribution unfounded, it's politically counterproductive. Texas hasn't done that badly, compared to the nation as a whole, in coping with the mess. If you're going to assign all the blame to Perry for the bad aspects of the situation, you're kind of stuck giving him credit, which he does not deserve, for the other aspects. Our rules on down payments, for instance, helped prevent the kinds of giddy runups in home prices seen in so many parts of the country, and what does not go up is not as likely to come down hard. That rule is long standing, and it's the legislative embodiment of a lesson learned from the Great Depression of the 1930s. Don't get in over your head, because that debt will drown you.

lostlakehiker Sun, Sep 18, 2011 11:19:44pm

re: #62 freetoken

I've been intending (yeah... intentions... I know...) to do a big write-up on AGW and why I am so pessimistic about our society - all of human government, not just the US - and the ability to deal with these big problems of our own making. I'm afraid though that it will be a bit of a doomer post so I've been putting it off.

The problem, as I see it, is that H. sapiens as a reactive animal isn't so different from any other primate. We differentiate ourselves (we believe) from the other animals in our ability to (at least minimally) understand "time", and to position past and future as different than the "now", and thus we can plan for the future.

However, a great deal of study into why people make decisions has illustrated that humans strongly discount the future and our decision making process is very strongly weighted by the "now" and the "future" becomes very quickly unimportant as the time horizon moves past a few days.

On top of all of that, the really profound changes in climate will take centuries - especially the changes in the water of the oceans of the world below the surface zone, and the melting of the large ice caps. This is so far beyond the time horizon of any political system that it is not at all surprising that no nation (as a whole) has really taken it seriously.

We have children. That's an activity that, for many of us at any rate, involves a time horizon of minimum 20-30 years. If we imagine grandchildren down the line, make that 40-60 years.

If we imagine that they, in turn, may have children and grandchildren, and go recursively with that, the time horizon reaches very deep indeed. The biological basis of human longevity, and of female menopause, is generally understood to be that grandmothers, and more generally grandparents, can at some point be more useful [to the reproductive success of the genes guiding the show) in that role than in trying to flog an old body into one more round of gestation, delivery, and nursing etc.

So arguably, we have an existing biological tendency to think long thoughts. There's something to work with.

I, personally, am immune by reason of age from AGW. Can't touch me. Much. Things don't get really hairy in the next 30 years, after all. Not compared to what comes later. But, strange though it may seem, I still care. I've got kin who are gonna have to face this slow but massive disaster.[All of ya, fellow humans, but also in the more immediate sense]

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 2:05:32am

re: #73 lostlakehiker

You never got around to explaining why you think that we can't take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

RogueOne Mon, Sep 19, 2011 2:39:56am

re: #31 Obdicut

Yeah, Rogue was trying to push this crap one morning-- it was the first I'd heard of it. The weird part about using this for denial is that the paper I believe explicilty references that the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth has not increased over the past few decades, which it would have had to in order for cosmic rays to produce global warming.......

Color me shocked to see you completely misrepresenting my argument especially when I said the CERN CLOUD study does NOT disprove the theory of AGW.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I also said what the study showed was the climate models are wrong and need to be "substantially revised". I was able to make that crazy leap because that's what the folks at CERN said:

(PDF) [Link: press.web.cern.ch...]

It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone.

Before we go through the whole argument, again, lets see if we have agreement on those two assertions. Do you agree that the climate models are wrong and need to be revised or not?

Sabnen Mon, Sep 19, 2011 6:13:07am

Ivar Giaever, a 1973 physics Nobel laureate, resigned last week from the American Physical Society over the group's insistence that evidence of man-made global warming is incontrovertible.

A man with an open mind.

Remember Lizards, no one disputes the facts just the interpretation of the facts.

Eventual Carrion Mon, Sep 19, 2011 6:38:44am

re: #76 Sabnen

Ivar Giaever, a 1973 physics Nobel laureate, resigned last week from the American Physical Society over the group's insistence that evidence of man-made global warming is incontrovertible.

A man with an open mind.

Remember Lizards, no one disputes the facts just the interpretation of the facts.

He is a physicist, as you mention, not a climatologist. He hates, as a rule, ANYONE using the word incontrovertible. He doesn't have a big problem with GW being a largely man-made phenom, he objects to the word "incontrovertible". He thinks there is always questions to be asked.

Interesting Times Mon, Sep 19, 2011 6:41:36am

re: #76 Sabnen

If you insist on being a dead-thread troll, at least try to keep up:

Ivar Giaever's links to Exxon Mobil, Heartland, Cato etc...

And you're dead wrong about "disputing the facts". Climate change deniers like Inhofe (another Heartland Institute "expert") deny the Earth is warming at all, and go against over 100 years of research showing CO2 is a greenhouse gas!

re: #75 RogueOne

Epic reading comprehension fail on your part. The exact snippet you quoted says:

It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone.

Do you see that? Treatment of AEROSOL FORMATION in climate models needs revision, not every freaking aspect of every climate model in existence.

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 8:24:11am

re: #75 RogueOne

I also said what the study showed was the climate models are wrong and need to be "substantially revised". I was able to make that crazy leap because that's what the folks at CERN said:

But they don't say that the models are wrong, or that they need to be substantially revised. It says that one tiny portion of a fragment of a part of it needs to be revised.

Before we go through the whole argument, again, lets see if we have agreement on those two assertions. Do you agree that the climate models are wrong and need to be revised or not?

The climate models, like our models of physics, of heat expansion in metal, or anything else, are always wrong and always need revision. That's what science is. It's the constant revision of what we already know, to make it more and more accurate.

And your claim that there is no way to know with 95% certainty is still entirely pulled out of your ass. You still have not explained why you're somehow smarter and more credible on this issue than 97% of call climatologists. You really should explain that, one of these days.

why are you better at climatology than they are?

Sabnen Mon, Sep 19, 2011 8:34:12am

re: #79 Obdicut

"why are you better at climatology than they are?"

Careful, by this we should leave banking to the bankers and morgage-making to the morgagers. . . and we know how that turned out.

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 8:37:17am

re: #80 Sabnen

Nope. Science is field that has the scientific method, peer-review, and a thousand other ways to make sure that only the best and most accurate science progresses forwards. That's why our scientific knowledge grows by leaps and bounds and yet economists still have absolutely no sense of consensus and many, like the dipshit Austrians, are simply going by ideology.

Science works. Demonstrably. The models are not incorrect-- the way that we know is because they work, you run them and they accurately model the climate as its occurred.

All of the very separate, very distinct models do so, to a very high degree of accuracy.

Can they be more accurate?

Sure.

Are they very accurate? Yes. Just as our physics models for gravitation, plasma events, etc. are highly accurate, incomplete, but still able to let us do shit like create nuclear goddamn reactions and get to the moon.

Science works.

Interesting Times Mon, Sep 19, 2011 8:43:35am

re: #80 Sabnen

"why are you better at climatology than they are?"

Careful, by this we should leave banking to the bankers and morgage-making to the morgagers. . . and we know how that turned out.

Oh. Okay. Then the next time you require specialized medical care, stay away from those useless neurosurgeons and cardiologists. And when it comes to vaccines, pay no attention to those scam-artist immunologists at the CDC and listen to this illustrious individual instead. 9_9

Sabnen Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:00:55am

re: #81 Obdicut

Sometimes complete faith in science doesn't work out so well.
The science of Eugenics is an abomination and Hitler sold it and made it real.

Sabnen Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:01:32am

re: #82 publicityStunted

I should be listening to you?

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:13:22am

re: #83 Sabnen

Science requires zero faith. Zero. It shows things that are demonstrably true. Eugenics is not science, it is a social policy.

You have no clue what you're talking about. At all.

tnguitarist Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:28:39am

re: #83 Sabnen

Sometimes complete faith in science doesn't work out so well.
The science of Eugenics is an abomination and Hitler sold it and made it real.

Well, you just proved that you have no idea what science is. You snuck in some Hitler to boot. Well done.

Sabnen Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:33:44am

re: #85 Obdicut

Why the attack? I didn't attack you.

You don't know me at all. You don't know where I grew up, went to school or studied. You have no clue what you're talking about when you talk about me and what I know or don't know. At all.

I am a cautious person, I believe in science. I have seen science misused.

Sabnen Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:46:27am

re: #86 tnguitarist

I didn't prove anything, you made a false assumption.
There is basic and applied science.
Eugenics was an applied science.

Obdicut Mon, Sep 19, 2011 9:57:04am

re: #88 Sabnen

No. Eugenics was a social policy by people who misunderstood science.

So let's not misunderstand science. Let's acknowledge AGW is real.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Mon, Sep 19, 2011 11:22:09am

re: #76 Sabnen

Yes he did... as part of a publicity stunt that was no doubt very appreciated by his friends at the Heartland Institute.

Ivar Giaever's links to Exxon Mobil, Heartland, Cato etc...

He has fallen very tragically and forgotten an awful lot of very basic science. So much so that the two best and most likely explanations for his disgraceful statements would be selling out or going senile.

My response to Ivar Giaever: Sell out or senile

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Video: Are Cosmic Rays Causing Global Warming?

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud