|
Phydeaux -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/5/2013 11:11:57 AM)
|
I don't have any more time to post at the moment.
I had occassion back in the 90's to examine the raw data of the land based temperature reporting station - and I noticed the discrepancy between the raw data and the corrected data. It was one of the things that triggered my interest in the area. While my original copy of the NASA data is long gone, it is still possible to find other people that picked up the same observation.
An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Other findings include, but are not limited to:
· Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
· Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
Regarding CERN and the "this doesn't necessarily duplicate whats happening in the real world".
"It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph.
A graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011"
[image]local://upfiles/11137/E235E6E698444AB5AA2911D64D52DAF7.jpg[/image]
Look at the pretty picture. At 4:33 they turned off the electric field and cosmic radiation starts producing nucleation clusters. They later add more radiation of the types "Svennie" suggest and the nucleation goes through the roof"
"Svennie" said these particles caused cloud formation. Cern tested the hypothesis- and lo and behold these particles cause cloud formation.
They tested Svennie's hypothesis - and *confirmed* it.
Interesting discussion of the result:http://www.wanliss.com/2011/09/cern-clouds-the-future-for-global-warming-alarmists/
Requoting the study:
Kirby et al. find that the net result of the published experimental results, is that: “Ground-level GCR ionization substantially increases the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid and sulphuric acid–ammonia particles, by between twofold and tenfold or more, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate.”
. But just to be even clearer, in plain English, what this means is that for the most part it appears that galactic cosmic rays significantly increase the formation of cloud nucleation, the formation of a seed about which vapor can condense, perhaps orders of magnitude more than previously known.
“We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold.” and “Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”
Yeah.. like I said.. tell me where this says Svennie was wrong.
|
|
|
|
