Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (937021)	5/26/2016 1:55:55 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 1575421

Hillary email says she refused official email in order to maintain secrecy: Twitter Lachlan Markay ? ?@lachlan DUDE. State IG report has Clinton telling Abedin she doesn't want an official email acct b/c she wants to avoid FOIA Former Sec's of State gave interviews with investigators .. not Hillary's team: Rachael Bade ? ?@rachaelmbade MORE FROM REPORT: @hillaryclinton, Mills, Huma, Sullivan didn't cooperate w/State OIG probe. Powell, Albright, Rice did interviews Hillary server once shut down due to hacking concerns: Steven Portnoy ? ?@stevenportnoy State OIG report has Clinton aide shutting down private server in 2011 because "someone was trying to hack us." http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/05/25/hillary-huma-email-found-in-state-dept-ig-report-is-being-called-smoking-gun-344488?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

To: Brumar89 who wrote (937021)	5/26/2016 2:00:01 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

The finding below are particularly interesting in the aftermath of Munshi's demonstration that the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT of anthropogenic origin." Munshi is very wrong. "20th century global warming may have been due to decreasing aroma from trees" LMAO. Have you checked the cosmic wind? Maybe it's slowing down, and it only feels warmer. Another wrong headline at WUWT about CERN and related cloud experiments Sou \| 2:23 PM It's happened again. Anthony has written another misleading headline (archived here), this time about the cloud experiments at CERN and related research. There were three papers this week from the same group of people, discussing aspects relating to clouds with and without cosmic rays. Anthony's headline was "CERN’s CLOUD experiment results suggests industrial revolution reduced cloud cover, cosmic rays have an impact too". Well, no. The papers didn't say that the industrial revolution reduced cloud cover. I don't know how he got that idea. The papers were about ionisation, and volatile emissions from plants - both from cloud chamber experiments, plus a paper on research conducted at high altitude fairly free of anthropogenic aerosols, looking at new particle formation as a precursor to clouds. Research from the cloud experiments at CERN The papers are available at Nature and Science, and many of the same authors are involved in each (not exactly the same): 1.Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles - published in Nature, written by a large team led by Jasper Kirby (the same person who made some rather extravagant claims about his previous work - and more) 2.The role of low-volatility organic compounds in initial particle growth in the atmosphere - published in Nature, written by a similarly large team led by Jasmin Tröstl 3.New particle formation in the free troposphere: A question of chemistry and timing - published in Science, written by a smaller team led by Federico Bianchi There's also an article in Science about the three papers, Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies - by Tim Wogan. A primer by Jeffrey Pierce at realclimate.org I'm not sure if the conclusion suggested by the last article is warranted, however I'm not an expert on clouds. For that I recommend an article at realclimate.org, by Jeffrey Pierce, which was written in 2011: Cosmic rays and clouds: Potential mechanisms. It sets out the relevant points very clearly, describing two main mechanisms for cloud nucleation: •the ion-aerosol clear-sky hypothesis - in which cosmic rays affect ion concentrations in the atmosphere which enhance aerosol nucleation, and •the ion-aerosol near-cloud hypothesis, which is to do with a charge separation between the ionosphere and the surface. The Pierce article also talks about which aspects of these hypotheses are being addressed by the group at CERN. More about the new cloud/aerosol papers The gist of the work described in the three papers is probably best described in the article by Tim Wogan, although he does seem to go a bit beyond the research itself. The authors of the first paper reported that in a large cloud chamber and under atmospheric conditions without any sulfuric acid, aerosol particles could be formed from highly oxidized biogenic vapours. Further than that, they found that "ions from Galactic cosmic rays increase the nucleation rate by one to two orders of magnitude compared with neutral nucleation". I didn't see whether the size of the particles was sufficiently large for cloud nucleation. That doesn't mean a lot because I'm not familiar with the subject. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment about the findings and what they might mean. The authors of the second paper did discuss particle size. They were also reporting results of experiments in a large cloud chamber under atmospheric conditions. They were reporting "the role of organic vapours in the initial growth of nucleated organic particles in the absence of inorganic acids and bases such as sulfuric acid or ammonia and amines, respectively". What they found was that organic vapours alone can drive nucleation. That is, that molecules like sulfur dioxide were not essential. From what I can tell, part of their experiment involved modeling, not all of it was from direct measurement in the cloud chamber. Again, I don't know if the particles were of sufficient size to form clouds. (I should add that the researchers acknowledged the importance of substances like sulphur dioxide in cloud nucleation, it's just that they were looking to see how essential it was.) The authors of the third paper reported observations of new particle formation in the free troposphere, at a high altitude research station in Switzerland. They collected measurements over a year, including "two intensive 1-month campaigns". They also used modeling as part of their research. The last paragraph of the paper is: Combining in situ observations and modeling results, we thus find that NPF [new particle formation] in the free troposphere depends on the availability of highly oxidized organic species, providing confirmation for NPF pathways observed in recent laboratory experiments. The availability of these highly oxidized organic species in turn depends on previous surface contact of the air mass and appropriate time to process the precursors from the boundary layer on their way up. In short, chemistry and timing play the main roles. To properly represent nucleation in the free troposphere, future atmospheric models should take these factors into account. It was only the first of the three papers listed above that discussed the implications for climate science in the following sense: Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles may have important consequences for pristine climates because it provides a mechanism by which nature produces particles without pollution. This could raise the baseline aerosol state of the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere and so could reduce the estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing from increased aerosol-cloud albedo over the industrial period. Again, I don't know if that suggestion has merit or not. It seems a bit of a stretch to me. I expect some cloud experts will discuss this - and will keep my eyes open. (Chris Colose pointed out that none of the papers mentioned climate sensitivity. Like me, he thought the claims were a bit of a stretch.) It looks as if Anthony Watts got things back to front when he wrote that the research suggested the "industrial revolution reduced cloud cover". What the researchers were suggesting was that pre-industrial climates may have had more cloud cover, not that the cloud cover now is less than thought. Anthony even wrote that as a sub-head under his article: "Our planet’s pre-industrial climate may have been cloudier than presently thought, shows CERN’s CLOUD experiment in two papers published in Nature." So I don't know how he got his headline so wrong. blog.hotwhopper.com