Has climate change been disproved' Large Hadron boffins cast shock DOUBT on global warming


Environmental | 208053 hits | May 30 11:01 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog
13 Comment

MANKIND'S burning of fossil fuels may not be the primary cause of global warming, according to the shock results of a new study by scientists behind the Large Hadron Collider (LCH).

Comments

  1. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:07 pm
    "Boffins from CERN have also discovered projected temperature increases over the next century may have been over estimated.

    Researchers found trees may have been putting similar aerosols into the air as burning fossil fuels, long before the industrial revolution, meaning humans may have had less impact on the climate than we thought.

    Scientists made the discovery during an experiment to create an artificial cloud that was thought could help cool Earth and reverse global warming.

    A study published this week in the journal Nature has looked more closely at the tiny particles within clouds, known as cloud seeds, that help cool the planet and found they can be produced naturally."

    More at Daily Express

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... al-warming

  2. by avatar DrCaleb
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:22 pm
    Which study in Nature? I see nothing of the sort.

  3. by avatar DrCaleb
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:22 pm
    WATCH: Shocking claim 'perfect flying saucer' was filmed after man SUMMONED aliens



    More at Daily Express:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/673 ... NED-aliens

  4. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:40 pm
    C'mon buddy, of all the people who might be able to take the high ground on questionable sources you're not among them.

    If media is using terms like "alleged" or "claims to be" they can talk about hysterical beliefs and what the people who hold them are up to. Your blogs and warmist propaganda sites and the 'ship of fools' over at the Guardian could stand to learn that lesson from the Daily Express when they're pulling their hair out and screeching about stuff like how they think the oceans are turning to acid.

  5. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:45 pm
    Although you're right about this:

    "DrCaleb" said
    Which study in Nature? I see nothing of the sort.


    They should have given a link.

  6. by avatar DrCaleb
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:46 pm
    "N_Fiddledog" said
    C'mon buddy, of all the people who might be able to take the high ground on questionable sources you're not among them.


    I am their leader. In God I trust, everyone else better have data.

    "N_Fiddledog" said

    If media is using terms like "alleged" or "claims to be" they can talk about hysterical beliefs and what the people who hold them are up to. Your blogs and warmist propaganda sites and the 'ship of fools' over at the Guardian could stand to learn that lesson from the Daily Express when they're pulling their hair out and screeching about stuff like how they think the oceans are turning to acid.


    I don't use blogs, and how many Pulitzer's does the Guardian have vs The Mail or The Express?

    You were the one presenting their claim that 'A study published this week in the journal Nature' . . . when no such study exists. Who is the one citing the source as credible as Lucy Decoture?

  7. by avatar DrCaleb
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:48 pm
    "N_Fiddledog" said
    Although you're right about this:

    Which study in Nature? I see nothing of the sort.


    They should have given a link.

    It's not hard to fact check.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/current_issue.html

    There is the current version. No such study was published.

  8. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Mon May 30, 2016 6:55 pm
    "DrCaleb" said
    Although you're right about this:

    Which study in Nature? I see nothing of the sort.


    They should have given a link.

    It's not hard to fact check.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/current_issue.html

    There is the current version. No such study was published.

    Try this one.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 17953.html

  9. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Mon May 30, 2016 7:00 pm
    In fact...

    It is thought that nucleation of aerosol particles from atmospheric vapours rarely proceeds in the absence of sulfuric acid. Now two papers in this week�s Nature point to a previously unappreciated role for highly oxygenated molecules (HOMs) in promoting new particle formation and growth, essentially a mechanism that produces aerosols in the absence of pollution.

    Published online 25 May 2016


    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 17953.html

    Mr Kirby said: "Since time immemorial nature has had a perfectly good way of making cloud seeds throughout atmosphere by this gas to particle conversion and that�s new.

    "Previous knowledge was that you required sulphuric acid - and that sulphuric acid is dominated by human activities."


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... al-warming

    Surely this doesn't mean...I mean is it even possible...could you be wrong?

    ( :twisted:)

  10. by avatar DrCaleb
    Mon May 30, 2016 7:09 pm
    "N_Fiddledog" said
    In fact...

    Surely this doesn't mean...I mean is it even possible...could you be wrong?


    There is always that possibility.

    However:
    Direct observational evidence of pure biogenic nucleation has not been reported so far, owing to atmospheric pollution or lack of suitable instrumentation. The pure biogenic mechanism is likely to dominate nucleation in pristine terrestrial regions such as tropical rainforests or at higher altitudes above forests in convective cloud outflows. Pure biogenic nucleation might also take place over forested areas at high northern latitudes during periods of especially low pollution. Identification of pure biogenic nucleation in the atmosphere will require simultaneous measurements with several newly developed mass spectrometers, APi-TOF (for molecular composition of ions and nucleating charged clusters) and CI-APi-TOF (gas-phase HOMs and H2SO4), together with standard instruments such as low-threshold particle counters, PTR-TOF (precursor organic vapours) and NAIS (size spectra of ions and charged particles).


    So, no, I see nothing that disproves 150 years of measurements showing us that climate change is ongoing and man has a hand in it.

    "N_Fiddledog" said

    ( :twisted:)


    Not even once. Whereas your record is a little less pristine.

  11. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Mon May 30, 2016 7:17 pm
    The claim of the title was:

    Has climate change been disproved? Large Hadron boffins cast shock DOUBT on global warming

    There's nothing false about a question and claim of possible doubt.

    However when you say a Study doesn't exist but you're shown it clearly does then you're flat-out wrong and that requires an apology, not double-down chest puffery. Who do you think you are, Donald Trump? :lol:

  12. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Mon May 30, 2016 7:37 pm
    Jasper Kirkby does interesting stuff over at the LHC in Cern.

    This isn't the first time we on the skeptic side have heard of him. Your guys tend to want his research buried though.

    Previously he was using the LHC to get answers on the theory that Cosmic rays may influence cloud development.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/ ... 1.504.html

    There was some evidence, but it wasn't the large scale, clearly evidenced smoking gun of external or natural overpowering force on climate.

    It was more drip, drip, drip of doubt that it's all about the carbon dioxide though.

  13. by avatar uwish
    Tue May 31, 2016 1:50 am
    we have either, very little or NOTHING to do with climate change. Enough of this fraud already.



view comments in forum
You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Who voted on this?

Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile