I expect within a year, the catastrophic projections favored by alarmists will be in the bin.
I agree.
OUTSTANDING POST!!!
Yes, they must be weasel words because they don’t conform to your narrative. Interesting how one can take an excellent scientific result and extract only that which supports one’s preconceived notions and find ways to ignore everything else.
Since the research “will reduce and sharpen” the warming projections, it kills off the prospects of catastrophic warming that under laid most of the alarmist research about ‘catastrophic impacts’ There is a large body of impact research that assumed warming of 4-10 deg C in their analysis.
It isn’t clear to me how he can justify saying that we will have warming in the future based on his cloud experiments. I don’t think that is a justifiable conclusion. The research was on cloud formation, and his conclusions are necessarily determined by the results of those experiments. He may be right in saying that, but it is an assumption, not a conclusion.
That is true. The specific result about cloud formation, in and of itself, neither advanced nor refuted the general global warming theories. Rather it is a tool that will help to improve the accuracy of computer modelling, which may indeed advance or refute current theories when the tools are incorporated into the models. But that conclusion was not presented in this video
The lab experiments with cloud formation show that the temps will be MUCH LOWER in the future. Cosmic rays, etc.
CERN did not make that claim. Are you smarter than the guy at CERN, who you praised so highly?
underwater in the year 2000 by what research?
the phrase has been known to be inaccurate for some time, the general idea is the gasses retain heat
Clouds cause cooling.
The prediction that New York would be underwater by the year 2000 is based on earlier studies that proved false.
In this case, “the general idea” doesn’t begin to reflect climate processes in the real world. Modeling is based on an understanding of all the processes involved that effect the climate, and if a process is not well understood it cannot be properly modeled. What the CERN experiments show is that the process involving aerosol production was not well understood, and consequently was poorly accounted for in the models.
That was not the point. Clouds causing cooling has been well known for decades. What was new in the CERN result was that clouds in the pre-industrial era were caused by condensation around bio-emissions from trees. They did not say that cloud cover would increase going forward.
No one claims the models are perfect. The only question is if they are accurate enough for the purpose to which they are put. Vague terms like “well-understood” and “properly modeled” are not quantitative enough to answer that question.
The models are most definitely NOT “accurate enough”.
When I said “quantitative”, I did not mean “with lots of superlative adjectives”.
I thought they were clear in stating that their research showed the model assumptions were wrong and that the models were thus projecting overwarming in the future. When the assumptions are corrected, the ECS range will be reduced and more focused.
I heard “more focused”. I did not hear that the mean target range would necessarily be reduced. Tell me how many minutes and seconds in I should go to hear that.