[LINK] BOM fails in Climate Prediction..... Cern Confirms Cloud theory.

[TKoltai]

January 18th, 2011 at 12:27 pm [Comment from: el gordo -
ttp://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/01/time-to-reject-agw-%E2%80%93-and-bob-
brown/]
Quote/
BoM predict ‘La Niña conditions will persist during the first quarter of
2011, but will gradually weaken with time as the central Pacific warms.’

Hmmm
.this will be an interesting test on the validity of those models,
especially if they have failed to consider the importance of solar
variability.
/Quote


North American snow cover has been at record highs in recent years.
ttp://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui
_season=1

The eight coldest days of the last decade have all occurred in the first
seven weeks of 2012. Temperatures are currently 0.4 degrees colder for
the date than any other year in the past decade. Temperatures have
dropped almost a full degree since 2010.

It would appear that the BOM cant predict climate from the Climate
Change Models.

Could the models be wrong ?

Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv Thinks so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI

Quote/
The CLOUD collaboration from CERN finally had their results published in
Nature (Ref [1]), showing that ionization increases the nucleation rate
of condensation nuclei. The results are very beautiful and they
demonstrate, yet again, how cosmic rays (which govern the amount of
atmospheric ionization) can in principle have an effect on climate. 

What do I mean? First, it is well known that solar variability has a
large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown
to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just
changes in the total solar irradiance. This was shown by using the
oceans as a huge calorimeter (e.g., as described here). Namely, an
amplification mechanism must be operating. 

One mechanism which was suggested, and which now has ample evidence
supporting it, is that of solar modulation of the cosmic ray flux (CRF),
known to govern the amount of atmospheric ionization. This in turn
modifies the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, thereby changing
the cloud characteristics (e.g. their reflectivity and lifetime). For a
few year old summary, take a look here.
As a consequence, anyone trying to understand past (and future) climate
change must consider the whole effect that the sun has on climate, not
just the relatively small variations in the total irradiance (which is
the only solar influence most modelers consider). This in turn implies,
that some of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun,
and that the climate sensitivity is on the low side (around 1 deg
increase per CO2 doubling)
/Quote

Nasa Scientists think so....:

Quote/
[http://climatedepot.com/a/1813/US-Government-Scientists-Shock-Admission
-Climate-Model-Software-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available
NASA scientist: Climate models are 'all make believe -- if you took one
look at the assumptions that go into this, you'd laugh'

NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt -- admitted last week that the
"chaotic component of climate system...is not predictable beyond two
weeks, even theoretically."
“NASA GISS model E written on some of the worst FORTRAN coding ever seen
is a challenge to even get running. NASA GISTEMP is even worse. Yet our
government has legislation under consideration significantly based on
model output that Jim Hansen started. His 1988 speech to Congress was
entirely based on model scenarios.”
/Quote

References: [Please add an "h" to the commencement of all links.]

Nature Article
[1] ttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

[2] Cern Cloud Press Release
ttp://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html

[3] Video about Cloud. ttp://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1370582