Read the comments
Saturday, December 26, 2009
10 comments:
Dear Anonymous,
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
You can stretch the comment box for more space
The management.
It seems one can't go outside for a breath of fresh air without tripping over yet another Einstein who's overturned the climate science edifice. This is a new one on me, but I'm sure well all be hearing a lot more about it real soon.
ReplyDeleteThe paper has been in revision a long time, which means that his predictions have already been falsified.
ReplyDeleteHe also relies on Stan Sanders est. for ClO dimer absorption cross-section to argue that another mechanism is needed. The Sander measurement has been knocked down.
Ah, but now it's been published in a peer-reviewed publication, which means there's no escaping it. Out of curiosity, just how prestigious is Physical Reports?
ReplyDeletePhysics Reports has a high, top ten, impact factor in physics, but since it mostly publishes review articles you can't really compare it with normal journals. It's a very odd journal to publish something like this in. The editor chosen specializes in "Complex Molecular & Quantum Chemistry" which makes you wonder how competent he is in climate science.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the odds that AGW should be overturned by an article named "Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion" is pretty slim. One would imagine that anyone who had a really important contribution would write it up in a special article, not hide it in the last sentence of the abstract: "Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed."
Unfortunately the disinformation campaign is successful amongst those who get most of their information from the conservative press.
ReplyDeleteSome of these conservative types are very vindictive and will turn of those who willfully mislead them, when they finally realise just how much they have been deceived. (Even if it is just because they missed some investment opportunities).
Unfortunately it may be too late by then.
Many of those who have accepted the denier argument are intelligent, well balanced, people who would support action if appraised of the true nature of the situation.
Those governments who accept the reality of global warming, need to do much more to explain what is needed and why. They need to get past the denier press.
A very worried Nonny Mouse
I like this bit most:
ReplyDelete"In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations."
Quite a brave prediction, considering where we are in the solar irradiance and ENSO cycles.
Can we get Svensmark and Lu to fight it out, cage style, to see who wins? (they can't both be right).
David Appel is following an article written by some Catholic priest that is full of fear about th' carbon regalayshun. Turns out it strongly echoes (and closely follows) a Heritage op-ed.
ReplyDeleteLooks like they are refining the message for the spring ACES push here in the states. Expect to see more pseudo/contrascience articles in the near future as well as more op-eds. Why?
Remember: it is in Corporate America's interest to have Cap'n Trade, as they can game the system to make profit. Strict EPA regulation will whack Corporate America's ankles and force them to change.
Best,
D
Word Verif agrees: leggelia
> "Finally, new observation of the
ReplyDelete> effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray
> driven ozone depletion on global
> climate change is also presented
> and discussed."
Does that last sentence mean "I have made new observations and am reporting the data" or "I also present and discuss my observations because I've been thinking about" the subject?
RE Steve Bloom said...
ReplyDelete"It seems one can't go outside for a breath of fresh air without tripping over yet another Einstein who's overturned the climate science edifice."
With all the Galileos around we are in a veritable renaissance of climate science.
Just one lump?
ReplyDelete