EnviroLink Forum

And the observed rate was far less than would be required for the climate impact, thus it does throw wrench into that hypothesis.

It is inferred in the data, but the authors made the clear statement to the media.

The illustrations were for the temperature change for over a century, and for ALL of the five forcings during that period. You take the information and claim it should be the same for a different period of time without any evidence of the forcings included being the same and try to say the original representation is wrong because it does not show what you claim it should in this new period.

Not stated in the paper.



This was the closest statement from Kirkby that I could find in the "media:"

“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

So where is Kirkby quoted as saying that GCRs do not have a significant impact on the nucleation rate?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

.Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. 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. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

If GHGs were the driver, regardless of the timescale, there would still have to be a Greenhouse warming signature, regardless of other minor factors that may have changed.

The fact that we don't observe this pattern of warming over the last 30 years, points to another factor besides GHGs that are changing the climate.

Snowy? Are there more probs at the enviro site? I log in and it says I'm logged in... and yet I can't post!
What up?