Funding was refused for examining "Detection and Attribution of the Solar Influence on Climate Change". Funding panel had an interest in not being proved wrong.
And Roger Pielke is NOT a denialist or even a full time sceptic.
formatting link
/quote
s it stands now, there are no independent climate assessments of the IPCC WG1 report funded and sanctioned by the NSF, NASA or the NRC.
The agency representatives at the NRC planning meeting on December 8
2008, either are inadvertantly neglecting the need for independent oversight, or they are deliberately ignoring this lack of an independent assessment because the IPCC findings fit their agenda on the climate issue. In either case, the policymakers and the public are being misled on the degree of understanding of the climate system, including the human role within in it.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that people have already looked into "Detection and Attribution of the Solar Influence on Climate Change" and have concluded that there wasn't any obvious correlation between solar outptu and climate , and that the solar output of visible and near-infra-red radiation doesn't vary enough to have any detectable direct effect on climate.
Granting this, paying for a meeting about ways of flogging a dead horse isn't going to be a useful way of spending the finite amount of money available.
"The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.
"Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics," one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.
He and his colleague Peter Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), compared a reconstruction of the prehistoric magnetic field 5,000 years ago based on data drawn from stalagmites and stalactites found in China and Oman.
The results of the study, which has also been published in US scientific journal Geology, lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed the climate was highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the earth's atmosphere.
Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.
"The only way we can explain the (geomagnetic-climate) connection is through the exact same physical mechanisms that were present in Henrik Svensmark's theory," Knudsen said.
"If changes in the magnetic field, which occur independently of the earth's climate, can be linked to changes in precipitation, then it can only be explained through the magnetic field's blocking of the cosmetic rays," he said.
The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate, "but the climate is an incredibly complex system, and it is unlikely we have a full overview over which factors play a part and how important each is in a given circumstance," Riisager told Videnskab."
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
The reason (for not funding), undoubtedly preordained before we even met on that Monday, is that a significant number of the members of the Committee were (and presumably still are) active participants of the IPCC assessment, as documented above.
Thus, the intensity of the dismissive and negative comments by a number of the committee members, and from even several of the agency representatives, with respect to any view that differed from the IPCC orthodoxy, made abundantly clear, that there was no interest in vesting an assessment of climate to anyone but the IPCC.
The IPCC is actually a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales. This NRC planning process further demonstrates the intent of the IPCC members to manipulate the science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers.
Neither the paper nor the authors are rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Cosmic rays may trigger rainall by providing condensation nuclei, but this is only going to influence where rain falls, not how much of it.
The results of the study, which has also been published in US scientific journal Geology, lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed the climate was highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the earth's atmosphere.
Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.
"The only way we can explain the (geomagnetic-climate) connection is through the exact same physical mechanisms that were present in Henrik Svensmark's theory," Knudsen said.
/end quote
Probably not a good idea to reject AGW if you want to get published. Not explicity rejecting AGW is not the same as accepting AGW.
The IPCC is a relatively smal group of individuals drawn from the limited number top climatologists - which is to say the people at the top of the profession who know one another personally - who do have considerable influence in determining how research money is apportioned, and do tend to have consistent and persistent ideas about which areas are more promising and potentially productive. That's not specific to climatology - that's how science works in general.
Complaining that the IPCC members are manipulating the science is putting the cart before the horse. The IPCC was set up to present the opinions of the top climatologists (as presented by their research published in peer-reviewed journals) to the politicians of the world, so it is scarcely surprising that the climatological scientific establishment shares the IPCC point of view about what constitutes productive areas of research. The IPCC wouldn't be doing its job if they didn't.
Roger Pielke is obviously unhappy that his proposal was rejected, and he has chosen to publicise his resentment, but he might as well complain about the weather. Scientific communities get it wrong from time to time - but not all that often - and nobody has yet invented a better scheme for appoiting the research money.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The IPCC exists to review the peer-reviewed literature in climatology and report it to the world in a form that is intelligible to politicians and other who aren't all that well-informed about climatology.
That is, it was set up by politicians to serve a political purpose. If it was unduly influenced by politicians, it wouldn't serve that purpose. If the IPCC was perceived by politicians as having its own political agenda, they'd shut it down immediately.
The anti-global warming propagandists would like nothing better, and they put a lot of effort into depicting the IPCC as some kind of Orwellian Ministry of Misinformation. It's nonsense, but the oil and coal industry can afford Karl Rove level liars, and they seem to have fooled a lot of people, you included.
I'm damned if I can see why cosmic rays and charged particles from the sun serving as condensation nuclei for rain conflicts with the proposition that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Having rain fall earlier and closer to the sites where the water vapour originally evaporated may have some influence on climate, but it doesn't - on the face of it - provide enough forcing to explain the recent ice ages or anything else of any signficance.
Denialist web-sites do come up with truly idiotic propositions.
I don't know anyone who claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. We are arguing over whether there has been a significant change in CO2 and whether that has had an impact on climate over the last 50 years.
Then read the science. The theory states cosmic rays cause the kind of cloud cover that reflects the suns heat and leads to net cooling. Try his book, The Chilling Stars, or check his peer reviewed papers.
I'm not paid by anyone to have an opinion on anything. I only quoted what I found this morning on the IPCCs own website. It is a statement of a political goal not related to climate.
If that goal seems to support the sceptical viewpoint then maybe the sceptics are right.
The local magnetic field deflects solar wind, too. Auroras are sufficiently macro phonemena that you can *see* them. Cloud tops are known to have serious electrical effects and generate gamma rays. One should not dismiss electromagnetic effects as contributors to climate.
Sloman's mind is absolutely made up, and anything that interferes with his beliefs must be dismissed as "denialism" or "right-wing lunacy" or corporate-dollar corrupted research. And other atmospheric phenomena must be dismissed as having no significant effect on the Holy Grail of AGW. Solar output hasn't changed in the last million years because he hasn't seen it change. Cloud nucleation doesn't matter because the same amount of rain is going to fall somewhere anyway, and it doesn't much matter when or where. He's a chemist, so only chemistry matters.
This is the New Scientific Method, absolute certainty based on the flimsiest of cooked data, bad models, political momentum, and rigid rejection of possibilities.
If I ever get to be that rigid and useless an old fart, chop me up for firewood.
Scarcely surprising, given the quality of your opinions.
It's a bromide. The IPCC has a political goal, which is to inform the politicians (and incidentally, everybody else). They'd be useless otherwise. It certainly doesn't form much of a basis for constructing a conspiracy theory about the IPCC working to delude the world, but conspiracy theory enthusiasts seem to enjoy constructing non- falsifiable theories, the more baroque the better.
It may persuade the cloud to form earlier than it might otherwise have done, but it won't create clouds that wouldn't have formed anyway. Apparently the planet always has about 50% cloud cover, which is what you'd expect if air that was cooling (because it was rising or moving away from the equator) started cendensing our water droplets and carried clouds, while the other half of the air that was warming (because it was falling or moving towards the equator) would evaporate any water droplets it was carrying and become cloud-free.
Why bother? He didn't persuade many other climatologists.
Doh. There is more than one type of cloud at more than one altitude. Some cause warming, some cause cooling.
He rattled some of them enough that they have spent some effort trying to disprove him. Of course you won't read his work because your faith can't take the strain.
Nor should one accept them, particularly if there isn't any evidence to suggest that they actully do anything significant.
k
Condensation causes cloud cover. Cosmic rays may provide condensation nuclei, which might allow the clouds to form faster, but there are plenty of other condesation nuclei around. As a mechaism for producing net cooling, this isn't persuasive.
Produce a real fact, as opposed to the usual Exxon-Mobil subsidised rubbish, and I will think about it. John Larkin is rather weak on facts outside electronics, and Raveninghorde is even weaker.
Provided that they don't actually have a significant effect, and neither of you has identified any such effect.
In fact it is supposed to have gone up by about 30% over the last five billion years. Thats 0,0006% over th last million years, which would be hard to see.
formatting link
"Theoretical models of the Sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about
75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.[65]"
You've got something right, for once, at least from the global climate point of view. Farmers have a real interest in exactly where rain falls, and have wasted money on cloud-seeding scheme from time to time, but that's another story.
A physical chemist, in fact, so physics matters too.
You know about as much about the scientific data as Eeyore, and consequently make ridiculous suggestions that can't possibly be true. If you knew a little more, you'd reject them equally rigidly.
In fact you'd be pliable and gullible fodder for every crank in the business, provided that they didn't ask you for money (which is always a dead give-away). A little more intellectual back-bone wouldn't do any harm, but you've (unwisely) persuaded yourself that you know it all already.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.