They are not meaningless they provide the best predictions we have for future climate, the fact that they successfully model past climate shows a lot. The denialists by contrast have nothing whatsoever and can't even model past climate with their crackpot ideas - ignoring the affects of greenhouse gases makes the past climate impossible to understand let alone model successfully.
these are climate scientists saying they are crap as well
as do other published science papers.
Furtado et al. conclude that "for implications on future climate change, the coupled climate models show no consensus on projected future changes in frequency of either the first or second leading pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies," and they say that "the lack of a consensus in changes in either mode also affects confidence in projected changes in the overlying atmospheric circulation." In addition, they note that the lack of consensus they find "mirrors parallel findings in changes in ENSO behavior conducted by van Oldenborgh et al. (2005), Guilyardi (2006) and Merryfield (2006)," and they state that these significant issues "most certainly impact global climate change predictions." And, we would add, they impact them in a highly negative way.
All models of complex systems are adjusted, that is perfectly normal.
what adjusted till they tell you what you want. ha yes they must be good.
Climate scientists do not discount things like cloud cover and forcing, I don't know why you think they do unless you've read it somewhere on one of your favourite sites.
when Svensmark first raised the idea of cosmic rays affecting cloud cover, the team denounced it within three days, saying it would not effect the cloud cover any where near enough. so yes they did and still do for other forcings
the IPCC AR4 states, in an appendix do not include ocean oscillations and other natural components that are being recognized as important.
That's just some nutter over-egging a paper by Roy Spencer, which was published in a rather inappropriate journal and has been mentioned here before.
The science deniers get very excited about the alleged inadequacies of proper climate models, but are apparently completely happy with the massively over-simplified model that Spencer uses to derive his consensus-busting results. It's all very strange, don't you think?
when Svensmark first raised the idea of cosmic rays affecting cloud cover, the team denounced it within three days, saying it would not effect the cloud cover any where near enough. so yes they did and still do for other forcings
You're contradicting yourself, if they didn't take account of cloud cover they wouldn't say the cosmic rays wouldn't have enough affect on cloud cover to matter.
That's just some nutter over-egging a paper by Roy Spencer, which was published in a rather inappropriate journal and has been mentioned here before.
The science deniers get very excited about the alleged inadequacies of proper climate models, but are apparently completely happy with the massively over-simplified model that Spencer uses to derive his consensus-busting results. It's all very strange, don't you think?
It's very strange indeed.
You - of all people - referencing a blog to refute a peer reviewed NASA paper.
In fact, it really doesn't get stranger than that, given your past revulsion whenever the other side refers to a blog.
You're contradicting yourself, if they didn't take account of cloud cover they wouldn't say the cosmic rays wouldn't have enough affect on cloud cover to matter.
so they dismissed his theory out of hand. only to be proven wrong by CERN.
besides admitting having little scientific knowledge of the effects of clouds.
would you bet your life on the outcome. plane / rocket. bullet proof vest.
even the IPCC AR4 admit to having little to no understanding of 15 of the 16 components it recognizes as causing climate change
as i said garbage in garbage out.
the IPCC AR4 states, in an appendix, that the level of scientific understanding for 15 of the 16 components it recognizes as causing climate change is medium, medium to low, low, or very low. The LOSU of 5 components is very low. Further, these components do not include ocean oscillations and other natural components that are being recognized as important.
Where's the quote from - it's clearly not from the IPCC by the wording. Maybe you could tell us. It would be much more useful in talking about what the IPCC actually says to quote the IPCC than quote someone else giving us their interpretation.
I don't know much about computer models either but you certainly haven't impressed us with your knowledge of the subject.
Have you dabbled a bit in programming? Work or home? What language(s), in what fields? I suspect some people who typed a program into a ZX Spectrum from a magazine in the 80s believe they're computer experts. But you have more than this? Some while ago I said I doubted it as your lack of attention to typographical detail or any detail makes it highly unlikely. I'm willing to be impressed.
Where's the quote from - it's clearly not from the IPCC by the wording. Maybe you could tell us. It would be much more useful in talking about what the IPCC actually says to quote the IPCC than quote someone else giving us their interpretation.
I don't know much about computer models either but you certainly haven't impressed us with your knowledge of the subject.
Have you dabbled a bit in programming? Work or home? What language(s), in what fields? I suspect some people who typed a program into a ZX Spectrum from a magazine in the 80s believe they're computer experts. But you have more than this? Some while ago I said I doubted it as your lack of attention to typographical detail or any detail makes it highly unlikely. I'm willing to be impressed.
And what's your climate science credentials?
After all, it's the same stupid fallacy you're applying. But what's new?
You - of all people - referencing a blog to refute a peer reviewed NASA paper.
It's not a NASA paper. I can tell at once that you haven't even looked at it. And given where it was published, it is unlikely to have been reviewed by anyone expert in the field (that's why it ended up where it did).
As for blogs, some are good, and some aren't. You like the ones that aren't, naturally.
It's not a NASA paper. I can tell at once that you haven't even looked at it. And given where it was published, it is unlikely to have been reviewed by anyone expert in the field (that's why it ended up where it did).
As for blogs, some are good, and some aren't. You like the ones that aren't, naturally = euphemism for - the blogs that agree with me are good, the blogs that disagree aren't.
Where's the quote from - it's clearly not from the IPCC by the wording. Maybe you could tell us. It would be much more useful in talking about what the IPCC actually says to quote the IPCC than quote someone else giving us their interpretation.
I don't know much about computer models either but you certainly haven't impressed us with your knowledge of the subject.
Have you dabbled a bit in programming? Work or home? What language(s), in what fields? I suspect some people who typed a program into a ZX Spectrum from a magazine in the 80s believe they're computer experts. But you have more than this? Some while ago I said I doubted it as your lack of attention to typographical detail or any detail makes it highly unlikely. I'm willing to be impressed.
I have no intention on impressing you. yes I have written programs on many different types of computer. no I never owned a ZX anything.
however the main parts of a computer has not changed. over the years. just the size, speed, memory. graphics.
And given where it was published, it is unlikely to have been reviewed by anyone expert in the field (that's why it ended up where it did).
Well considering that the pal reviewers once conspired and threatened to blacklist editors if they published peer reviewed papers that opposed their views, I didn't expect it to get published on one of the "McCarthy style controlled" journals.
The climate witchfinders might again have had something to say about that.
so they dismissed his theory out of hand. only to be proven wrong by CERN.
You know nothing about the science or the history of the science. The idea that cosmic rays might have a role in aerosol nucleation pre-dates Svensmark by many years, so that isn't his theory, and nobody has dismissed it out of hand. What Svensmark did was to claim that he could explain away recent warming using this mechanism alone (and put out a press release to that effect). So the science of cosmic ray / climate interactions is certainly interesting, but Svensmark's contributions are less than honourable (including some very dodgy correlations), which is probably why he is no longer involved with the CLOUD experiment.
The CLOUD results add to our knowledge of aerosol processes, and raise some interesting new questions - most of which have nothing to do with GCR - but they aren't going to vanquish CO2 as a primary driver of climate change. It's not even clear at this stage if any cosmic ray modulation (which has yet to be demonstrated) would go in the opposite sense to the one required by Svensmark, since clouds can warm or cool the planet, depending on where they form.
The "proven wrong" claim is just a lie. CLOUD has yet to demonstrate that ion-induced aerosols can grow to sufficient size to act as cloud-condensation nuclei. And even then, it would remain to be demonstrated that this had a significant effect on cloud cover (because there are lots of other CCNs) and that the radiative forcing was in the direction Svensmark claims, rather than the opposite.
And even then, there would be the teeny-weeny problem of there not having been any trend in GCR since the 1950s (which is why Eel starts rambling on about neutrinos and other things he doesn't understand, in the hope they'll somehow fill the gap). So there doesn't seem to be any way in which the mechanism, even if it is eventually demonstrated, can have a role in recent warming.
Yes, which Spencer has "interpreted" with the aid of his phoney model. The findings are very much his own, and not NASA's. But science deniers like to stamp the NASA imprimatur on things they like the sound of, even when (as in this case) it is entirely inappropriate.
Well considering that the pal reviewers once conspired and threatened to get editors the bullet if they published peer reviewed papers that opposed their views, I didn't expect it to get published on one of the "cabal controlled" journals.
The climate mafia might again have had something to say about that.
After all, it's the same stupid fallacy you're applying. But what's new?
None, specifically but I believe I'm being consistent.
I studied Physics many years ago, so topics like how gases behave, heat transfer, propogation of electromagnetic radiation were all covered and some atomic and nuclear.
Physics is the science subject closest to climate science, though of course people who studied or did research specifically in climate science or atmospheric physics or climate modelling will know much more about it than I do. I will defer to them, but not the typical hack or blogger who's never studied any relevant science, even to GCSE probably.
For instance I can look down on the ignorant tossers like Monckton (who read 'Classics') because he knows nothing about science. His colossal ego and the astonishing distance his ignorant thoughts travel make him a blockage to wider understanding among many simple people who believe him because he sounds confident and says what they're hoping to hear. They'll even pay him to lie to them, and say "thank you my Lord" as they tug their forelocks!
Physics is the science subject closest to climate science, though of course people who studied or did research specifically in climate science or atmospheric physics or climate modelling will know much more about it than I do. I will defer to them, but not the typical hack or blogger who's never studied any relevant science, even to GCSE probably.
I hope you apply those same standards to the bloggers that njp recommends.
and say "thank you my Lord" as they tug their forelocks!
What's new there? That's what a lot of your posts read like when you're responding to njp.
Yes, but the chance of detecting any of them is so close to zero that it is not even worth considering.
Unless you're looking for the high energy GCRs of course, which I thought you'd finally admitted were part of the observatory's purpose.. But of course it's hard to deny that when the observatories say their aim is to detect GCRs. As for chance of detection, you wibbled about that before.. there are loads of neutrinos flying about hence the need to shield the detectors, do the veto thing and tweak thresholds on detectors to get the ones you're interested in.
This paragraph goes right to the heart of Eel's cluelessness.
Especially if you're taking it out of context..
Apparently, a detector specifically designed to detect extra-terrestrial neutrinos can't do the job for which it was designed,
Nope, I'm saying it can do the job for which they're designed.. detecting neutrinos from GCR's.
More cluelessness from Eel. If he knew any physics, he would know that muons are the dominant component of the cosmic ray flux at the Earth's surface
Yep, I knew that, hence my surprise that you still think neutrino dectors can't detect GCRs,
Why would I have to "admit" something I have never denied?
You squirm so much it's hard to keep track of what you're denying at the moment. So far you still seem to think the only official GCR flux data should come from neutron counts and any other source of GCR data should be deleted.
Nothing you have read will have been talking about detecting the neutrinos from air showers.
Hmm.. you don't seem to have read much. How do you think detection works?
Oh, let's explore this further. How do you think an air shower tells you anything whatsoever about the direction of the source of cosmic rays?
I kinda figured you understood this bit when you said-
I "got it" right from the outset. The point about a neutrino interaction is that the relativistic muon you are detecting emerges from the interaction at almost the same angle as the incident neutrino. This means that you can track its course through the detector, and this points back to the source of the neutrino.
I hope you apply those same standards to the bloggers that njp recommends.
Certainly, I try to be consistent. A blogger who is a climate scientist* is writing from an informed position. One with no science education at all (eg Delingpole, I assume) is just a person paid to write his opinion with no responsibility to the truth. Uninformed opinions count for nothing.
I respect so-called deniers if they are working, published climate scientists*, as they are better placed than I am to know the subject. If they're in the minority I have to assume they're probably wrong as almost all climate scientists think.
What's new there? That's what a lot of your posts read like when you're responding to njp.
I don't understand why you take such umbrage on seeing people agree. I know you'll hate this but I respect njp and haven't spotted any science errors. Some minor flaws in English or typography perhaps, and I sometimes feel his arguments are a little too forthright, but I haven't found fault in the factual scientific basis of his posts.
I do enjoy seeing njp demolish Eel when he's pretending to try to understand or re-interpret the science. It's cheap entertainment.
Unless you're looking for the high energy GCRs of course, which I thought you'd finally admitted were part of the observatory's purpose.. But of course it's hard to deny that when the observatories say their aim is to detect GCRs. As for chance of detection, you wibbled about that before.. there are loads of neutrinos flying about hence the need to shield the detectors, do the veto thing and tweak thresholds on detectors to get the ones you're interested in.
They aren't shielding it from neutrinos! You can't shield it from neutrinos, because there is no such thing as a neutrino shield. And you can't use a veto detector either, because (and I realise this is going to be news to you) you need a neutrino detector to detect neutrinos. The job of the veto detector is to detect particles other than neutrinos which would trigger the neutrino detector.
Just when I think we've finally plumbed the depths of your misconceptions, you manage to surprise me yet again.
Nope, I'm saying it can do the job for which they're designed.. detecting neutrinos from GCR's.
You think it is trying to detect neutrinos that come from GCR interactions in the atmosphere. It is not. It is trying to detect neutrinos that come from the same source as cosmic rays. This is something completely different.
The magnitude of this misconception is breathtaking.
Yep, I knew that, hence my surprise that you still think neutrino dectors can't detect GCRs,
And again with the lies.
Let's cut all the remaining crap from your post and try to pin you down and stop you slithering, just for a moment:
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
Comments
as do other published science papers. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N34/C1.php
what adjusted till they tell you what you want. ha yes they must be good.
when Svensmark first raised the idea of cosmic rays affecting cloud cover, the team denounced it within three days, saying it would not effect the cloud cover any where near enough. so yes they did and still do for other forcings
The science deniers get very excited about the alleged inadequacies of proper climate models, but are apparently completely happy with the massively over-simplified model that Spencer uses to derive his consensus-busting results. It's all very strange, don't you think?
and all have best guesses as inputs. like about 100,000 tons give or take 40 tons. yup it will get of the ground no problem.
didn't they loose a planet lander on mars or somewhere, due to a mix up of inches verses centimetres.
You're contradicting yourself, if they didn't take account of cloud cover they wouldn't say the cosmic rays wouldn't have enough affect on cloud cover to matter.
It's very strange indeed.
You - of all people - referencing a blog to refute a peer reviewed NASA paper.
In fact, it really doesn't get stranger than that, given your past revulsion whenever the other side refers to a blog.
Do as I say, not as I do.
You're not really Al Gore by any chance, are you?
so they dismissed his theory out of hand. only to be proven wrong by CERN.
besides admitting having little scientific knowledge of the effects of clouds.
I don't know much about computer models either but you certainly haven't impressed us with your knowledge of the subject.
Have you dabbled a bit in programming? Work or home? What language(s), in what fields? I suspect some people who typed a program into a ZX Spectrum from a magazine in the 80s believe they're computer experts. But you have more than this? Some while ago I said I doubted it as your lack of attention to typographical detail or any detail makes it highly unlikely. I'm willing to be impressed.
And what's your climate science credentials?
After all, it's the same stupid fallacy you're applying. But what's new?
As for blogs, some are good, and some aren't. You like the ones that aren't, naturally.
NASA data then?
And I fixed that last paragraph for you.
I have no intention on impressing you. yes I have written programs on many different types of computer. no I never owned a ZX anything.
however the main parts of a computer has not changed. over the years. just the size, speed, memory. graphics.
in an appendix of the IPCC AR4
Well considering that the pal reviewers once conspired and threatened to blacklist editors if they published peer reviewed papers that opposed their views, I didn't expect it to get published on one of the "McCarthy style controlled" journals.
The climate witchfinders might again have had something to say about that.
The CLOUD results add to our knowledge of aerosol processes, and raise some interesting new questions - most of which have nothing to do with GCR - but they aren't going to vanquish CO2 as a primary driver of climate change. It's not even clear at this stage if any cosmic ray modulation (which has yet to be demonstrated) would go in the opposite sense to the one required by Svensmark, since clouds can warm or cool the planet, depending on where they form.
The "proven wrong" claim is just a lie. CLOUD has yet to demonstrate that ion-induced aerosols can grow to sufficient size to act as cloud-condensation nuclei. And even then, it would remain to be demonstrated that this had a significant effect on cloud cover (because there are lots of other CCNs) and that the radiative forcing was in the direction Svensmark claims, rather than the opposite.
And even then, there would be the teeny-weeny problem of there not having been any trend in GCR since the 1950s (which is why Eel starts rambling on about neutrinos and other things he doesn't understand, in the hope they'll somehow fill the gap). So there doesn't seem to be any way in which the mechanism, even if it is eventually demonstrated, can have a role in recent warming.
You should make yourself a tinfoil hat.
Send me the pattern and I'll model it on yours.
It was all in the emails - I guess your hat must be blocking that information.
That's what I know there is no scandal, except in the deranged minds of the conspiracy nutters.
I studied Physics many years ago, so topics like how gases behave, heat transfer, propogation of electromagnetic radiation were all covered and some atomic and nuclear.
Physics is the science subject closest to climate science, though of course people who studied or did research specifically in climate science or atmospheric physics or climate modelling will know much more about it than I do. I will defer to them, but not the typical hack or blogger who's never studied any relevant science, even to GCSE probably.
For instance I can look down on the ignorant tossers like Monckton (who read 'Classics') because he knows nothing about science. His colossal ego and the astonishing distance his ignorant thoughts travel make him a blockage to wider understanding among many simple people who believe him because he sounds confident and says what they're hoping to hear. They'll even pay him to lie to them, and say "thank you my Lord" as they tug their forelocks!
But you can't point to where we can check that the IPCC themselves said what you said someone said they'd said?
No surprise. You've fulfilled your aim of not impressing me.
Unless you're looking for the high energy GCRs of course, which I thought you'd finally admitted were part of the observatory's purpose.. But of course it's hard to deny that when the observatories say their aim is to detect GCRs. As for chance of detection, you wibbled about that before.. there are loads of neutrinos flying about hence the need to shield the detectors, do the veto thing and tweak thresholds on detectors to get the ones you're interested in.
Especially if you're taking it out of context..
Nope, I'm saying it can do the job for which they're designed.. detecting neutrinos from GCR's.
Yep, I knew that, hence my surprise that you still think neutrino dectors can't detect GCRs,
You squirm so much it's hard to keep track of what you're denying at the moment. So far you still seem to think the only official GCR flux data should come from neutron counts and any other source of GCR data should be deleted.
Hmm.. you don't seem to have read much. How do you think detection works?
I kinda figured you understood this bit when you said-
But I guess not..
Somehow I doubt you ever will..
I respect so-called deniers if they are working, published climate scientists*, as they are better placed than I am to know the subject. If they're in the minority I have to assume they're probably wrong as almost all climate scientists think.
I don't understand why you take such umbrage on seeing people agree. I know you'll hate this but I respect njp and haven't spotted any science errors. Some minor flaws in English or typography perhaps, and I sometimes feel his arguments are a little too forthright, but I haven't found fault in the factual scientific basis of his posts.
I do enjoy seeing njp demolish Eel when he's pretending to try to understand or re-interpret the science. It's cheap entertainment.
*whatever 'side' they're on
Just when I think we've finally plumbed the depths of your misconceptions, you manage to surprise me yet again.
You think it is trying to detect neutrinos that come from GCR interactions in the atmosphere. It is not. It is trying to detect neutrinos that come from the same source as cosmic rays. This is something completely different.
The magnitude of this misconception is breathtaking.
And again with the lies.
Let's cut all the remaining crap from your post and try to pin you down and stop you slithering, just for a moment:
You claim that air showers can identify the source of cosmic rays. Tell us how you think that works.
Of course it was those old people who replaced all those green practices with the high energy ones we have now.
Er, so no correlation, but you haven't a clue.
nlp, he of 'burn the data' fame is busily self-destructing at the moment..