First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.
The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.
I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC
@Bron: I am fully aware of the climategate misunderstanding, in my opinion they did not do anything shady.
@Bdaman: The ice cores, the EPICA data, are not controlled by the gatekeeper, there are dozens of temperature records by various means that no given individual can control. Your idea that some individual can control scientists is mistaken, you do not know what you are talking about. I publish in journals, and the research I publish has never been altered or adjusted by anybody, including me. The most I have ever been asked to do is change a scale or make a graph more readable. The data I observed and produced with my equipment, if I were ever asked to alter it I would pull my submission and never submit to that journal again. I know a lot of scientists, and I do not know a single one that would lie about their observations if they were asked to do so. If any scientist I know would do that, I’d rather not know them.
There is no gatekeeper. I’m done, I have real work to do and you cannot stick to reality. Enjoy your idiotic conspiracy fantasies.
Bron maybe you could look up Mt Pinatubo eruption to show us what cooling effect it had.
I do not believe you;
What don’t you believe Tony.
Please see graph of the original IPCC MWP AND LIA at link below.
“So let me point out that if you believe in the medieval warm period (-0.2C) and the little ice age (-0.5C) then you should realize that you believe a 0.3C change is enough to count as the difference between “warm” and “ice age”, and then you should understand that we are 0.7C, which is more than twice that 0.3C reference change, above “warm”, and if you are going to be consistent at all you should characterize that as “pretty damn hot.”
***********************************************************************************************
Ah ha but the recorded temperature is kept by the gate keeper. The gate keeper controls the temp up or down. Your not paying attention Tony. Remember he’s the expert and sometimes no matter what an expert can’t be wrong. This is why the only record that cannot be adjusted is the satellite record and unfortunately it has only been around since the 70’s.
As to the MWP and LIA, we are at 400 ppm and the Artic doesn’t look like it’s gonna be ice free anytime soon even though the experts said it would be by this year and Greenland doesn’t look like it’s gonna turn green anytime soon either.
From the link below
Introduction
In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was “a discernible human influence on global climate”.
In their previous 1990 report [33], the IPCC illustrated their, then, understanding of how global climate had changed, not just during the previous 95 years, but also the past 1,000 years. In so doing they presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.
This graph asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today (as suggested by the opening lines to the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer), while it was much cooler during the Little Ice Age (as suggested by John King). Historical records from all over Europe, and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound impact on human society. For example, the colonisation of Greenland by the Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed, while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent `frost fairs’ being held on the river ice.
The dating of these two climatic events depends to some extent on what one regards as `warm’ and `cold’ in comparison with present temperatures, but the following dating approximates these events –
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Bdaman:
apparently Tony C did not hear about the climategate email scandal a few years ago. How many “peer” reviewed journals have articles based on data from Mann and others?
How long did the little ice age last? How much did volcanic activity contribute? We have had some major eruptions in the last 30 years and it didnt send us into a ice age. Dropped the temperature a little bit but not much else.
@Bdaman: I do not believe you; you will have to show some peer-reviewed proof from a reliable journal. Until then, and provisionally, I think you are making shit up, or repeating shit somebody else made up.
“Thank you Gene, which begs the question, can you really control the climate.”
Not yet. In theory it is possible. That’s what the whole of idea of terraforming is based upon. However, what we can control now is our known and demonstrable negative impact to the climate by changing our behavior.
I can tell you this. We are at 400ppm and the frequency of extreme events or less today than they were around 1900.
@Bdaman: I was specific; what we would be safe from is screwing up a system that has been stable. I provided you a chart, with a baseline of average temperature in the mid 20th century.
The stabiity included a fluctuation called the medieval warm period that was -0.2C below the baseline, it was so-called “warm” because it was the peak between two -0.5C troughs on either side of it. In 2004, when this graph ends, we are 0.5C ABOVE the baseline, which is 0.7C above the “medieval warm period.” My understanding is that it is higher than that now, but I do not have a figure at hand.
So let me point out that if you believe in the medieval warm period (-0.2C) and the little ice age (-0.5C) then you should realize that you believe a 0.3C change is enough to count as the difference between “warm” and “ice age”, and then you should understand that we are 0.7C, which is more than twice that 0.3C reference change, above “warm”, and if you are going to be consistent at all you should characterize that as “pretty damn hot.”
But be a fool if you want, you will join the vast majority of fools that do not understand even the implications of their OWN arguments.
Thank you Gene, which begs the question, can you really control the climate.
Bdaman,
There are other causes identified for the medieval warm/cold periods, the least of which is cyclical lows in solar radiation and the most of which is heightened vulcanism. These are natural processes and even if their effect is climate change, that doesn’t impact the causal relationship between industrial activity and AGW. Differing causes can have the same net effect. That true solutions can be reached by multiple paths is axiomatic to the rules of thought.
“We had a stable system with stable temperatures for about 12,000 years, then we started pumping vast quantities of CO2 into the air and we lost the stabiity.”
Lets see if we start at “we started pumping vast quantities of CO2 into the air” I assume your referencing the industrial revolution and go back 12,000 years from there you think we had a stable temperatures? Seriously ? The medieval warm period didn’t happen? little ice age ?
Tony I think Hansen is a fraud. I think Global Warming is a fraud. I think CO2 plays a minor role in re to temperatures. I think CO2 is a key component to life on earth.
Seeing how you can’t specifically tell me what we will be safe from I’ll tell you what is perceived through the general public or used to be anyways. Recent polling trends show a decline in the belief in man made global warming. However most believe/believed, that by reducing CO2 it will reduce the likely hood of stronger hurricanes/typhoons, droughts,floods,earthquakes and extreme weather events just to name a few. In 1960 when CO2 first began to be measured the content was around 315ppm. Looking at the rate of increase from 1960 to present it’s safe to deduce that atmospheric CO2 was at 300ppm or lower around 1900, not far from your 285ppm safe zone.. Do you think there wasn’t extreme weather events back then, hurricanes ? tornado’s?, floods? drought?
@Bdaman: How is pointing at Hansen and saying, “He said so! He’s the expert! Everybody says he is the expert!”
Interpreting the data for yourself? What data ar you “interpreting,” the data that people say Hansen is the expert and should do my thinking for me?
@Bdaman: Ok what are we safe from?
We are more safe from unintended consquences, which are almost always bad news. That was the point of this discussion: We had a stable system with stable temperatures for about 12,000 years, then we started pumping vast quantities of CO2 into the air and we lost the stabiity. Where does that lead? We cannot be certain, it is the unknown. When we make projections, none of them look good, so we are left with two unpalatable choices:
If our projections are right we are headed for disaster, if they are wrong we are making major changes with no idea of the consequences. Either way, conservatism is the right choice: We should back off to the pre-industrial Holocene levels of greenhouse gasses, i.e. about 250-300 ppm.
The scientific approach seems to mystify you. I cannot imagine living in a world where I cannot interpret data for myself, and must depend upon popularity as a proxy for logic and reason. It must be miserable.
Tony I do interpret the data for myself and I come to a total opposite conclusion than you.
Still have that question hanging out there.
If we get CO2 down to your level of 275 or your accepted safe zone, what will that keep us safe from ?
@Bdaman: What he says it is is accepted as official.
I do not care about officialdom, I care about science. Science does not have “gatekeepers.” If he can change it at his whim, it is not science. I do not accept credentials or acclaim in place of science. Either he is constrained by reality or he is not, and if he is not, he is just another pundit. I do not care how many people refer to him as “expert,” I do not accept royal decree as scientific evidence, and I do not accept Congress as a qualified review board for whether something is scientifically valid or not; and appearing before Congress does not impress me as some sort of evidence.
The scientific approach seems to mystify you. I cannot imagine living in a world where I cannot interpret data for myself, and must depend upon popularity as a proxy for logic and reason. It must be miserable.
One last P.S. on Hansen, I’m not the only one who refers to him as EXPERT.
Start your google search with Climate Expert and when you input J as the next letter his name pops up. You can click it to see all the majors who refer to him as Climate Expert James Hansen.
P.S. Hansen has shown his work and testified about his work to congress.
You can download the PDF and get some basics on his works.
Hansen is the gate keeper of temperature. What he says it is is accepted as official. He has the ability to adjust it up or down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Ok what are we safe from ?