‘It provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change’

I’m guessing Al Gore thinks this piece is racist:

Al-gore CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists “to present the results clearly but not interpret them”. Readers can judge whether CLOUD’s lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss’s warning.

“Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.”

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

“We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.”

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

“[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

Summarizing, the sun appears to be more responsible for global warming than humans.  And the scientists at CERN join the racist throngs throwing cold water on Al Gore’s agenda.  

Hey Al… you’re losing the conversation

H/T to Lex Communis.

Shortlink:

Posted by on August 31, 2011.
Filed under Global Warming, Scams, Scandals, Science.
Tagged with: .
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • herddog505

    First of all, I must say that I have to restrain my urge to leap on this story and the reported data as further “proof” that Algore and the AGW crowd are, to put it bluntly, full of sh*t.  This is merely more experimental data of the same type that gave us the AGW “theory” in the first place: the CERN scientists may be wrong, their study may be flawed, and there is seldom (if ever) a “last word” in science.

    That being said, this is a huge blow to AGW simply because it (further) damages – if not outright annihilates – the credibility of the models upon which AGW’s “credibility” relies.  This is the key statement from the excerpt above:

    [W]ater vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

    According to the gorebots, the driving force behind global temperatures is CO2; when pressed, they MIGHT grudgingly admit that other factors play some small role, but CO2 (from American SUV’s, lightbulbs, and factories) is the key.  Now we have a respected organization telling us that cloud cover is a major factor, and that is controlled by cosmic radiation which is completely beyond the control of human beings.

    [I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

    I can practically hear Algore screaming “BULLSH*T” even now.  Any bets as to whether the models will be revised?  Or will the gorebots just do what they’ve been doing, i.e. write garbage code that results in hockey sticks and the like no matter what data is put into them?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      This experiment was first proposed in 1998, and has been on the back burner until just now because of the threat it posed to the theories underlying (they sure as hell no longer support) AGW.

      There is also a very strong correlation between solar activity and global climate trends, and the cloud formation piece here is the missing negative feedback loop.

    • http://twitter.com/Innocentious I.V. Baker

      herddog505,

      I am skeptical of AGW not because CO2 does not increase temperature ( it does though not so much increase peak temperature from my understanding but rather slows the rate at which heat is radiated back out into space ) however due to this effect it is supposed to cause all kinds of feedback loops which are the REAL cause of AGW. In other words increased CO2 is a catalyst for increased Temperature due to an increase in Water Vapor and other ‘real’ heat game changers. Cloud Cover is in point of fact a key player in this and while this experiment MAY show that we did not understand the ‘real’ catalyst behind a MAJOR factor in our climate.

      • herddog505

        I don’t believe in AGW for a number of reasons:

        1.  Nobody has reliably proved that the earth is actually warming at some sort of unprecedented, unnatural rate.  To the extent we can even measure “global temperatures”, there’s been so much jiggering and massaging of the numbers that they are completely unreliable.  When you’ve got “scientists” talking about “hide the decline”, I get VERY suspicious.

        2.  The gorebots refuse to openly discuss and defend their work, but instead mount propaganda campaigns against “deniers”.  Scientists confident in their work don’t so that.

        3.  The “proof” of AGW lies in models that have proved to be completely unreliable.

        4.  When pressed, the gorebots will admit that they don’t completely understand what causes warming and cooling: “It’s complicated.”  Yeah, no sh*t.

        5.  We cannot reliably predict the weather more than a week out; how in the world can we predict what the climate will be like in fifty years???

        6.  To the extent that the gorebots have made short-term predictions (snowfall in Britain, hurricanes, etc.) they have proved uniformly wrong. 

        7.  The gorebots have to keep changing the term.  It used to be “global warming”.  Then it was “climate change”.  Then they tried “climate disruption”. This tells me that they really don’t know what the hell they are talking about.

        8.  The gorebots do not themselves live like they demand others do.

  • Anonymous

    One interesting side-light is that this theory has been kicking around for about 15 years, but the CAGW “scientists” didn’t want the experiment to go forward.  And after it went forward, they wanted it reported on very carefully.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
    So if it’s so great, why aren’t we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Here’s how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online:
    I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.
    Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat. He notes:
    CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.
    …this was never an experiment the scientific establishment wanted to happen in the first place.The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.”

    • herddog505

      I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

      This strikes me as the flimsiest sort of dodge.  Interpretting data is part of what scientists DO.  Telling a scientist not to interpret data is much like telling an accountant NOT to say whether you’ve run a profit or a loss, or a detective NOT to say whether he thinks that there’s good evidence that a suspect actually committed the crime.

      Where the gorebots lost it was in their “over-interpretation”, i.e. trying to claim that they’d completely solved the problem, that nothing more remained to be said, and that anybody who was skeptical was some sort of a liar or heretic, and that we had to take the action they “recommended” if we wanted life on earth to continue.  These clowns have done tremendous damage to science by changing it from a methodical search for facts and understanding to some sort of a scam.

    • Anonymous

      “the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert
      Bolin, denounced the theory [that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate] , saying, “I find the move from this pair
      scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about
      discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence,
      and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found
      themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their
      impeccable scientific credentials.

      This is why the science was “settled”.

      Related: “No one has made more money from climate change hype than Gore. According to the
      U.K.’s Guardian newspaper.”

  • Anonymous

    So . . . . the Sun has something to do with the temperature on the Earth? Who could have seen that one coming?

    • Anonymous

      YIKES!  All these years I thought it was just me!  I felt warmer when the sun was shining and colder at night!!!  I kept thinking: “I wonder if the SUN provides WARMTH??” 
      Now, after millions of Euros and thousands of hours from “really smart scientist-people” they have confirmed my observation!!

    • http://profiles.google.com/elilla.shadowheart Elilla Shadowheart

      Damn that giant nuclear furnace in the sky.  Who knew a giant ball of fire could do things like this?  Madness I say!

  • Anonymous

    In other news, Britian experienced the coldest summer in 2 decades. 

    • herddog505

      Obviously due to global warming, because a warmer ocean (which is caused by global warming) will caused… um… more snowfall, which in turn causes… um… longer, colder winters… which in turn causes more mental health problems among people, who get stressed out from the global warming-induced cold weather, which causes them to drive less, which causes them to emit less CO2, which causes less global warming, which makes the weather (which is NOT the same as climate except when it comes to hurricanes) to be TEMPORARILY cooler.  QED.

      /sarc

      • Anonymous

        Of course what was I thinking.

        • herddog505

          What’s scary is that, if cleaned up a bit and presented by some talking head on CNN or in the pages of the NYT, my “explanation” would be an accepted scientific “consensus” on why Britain is having a cool summer.  We saw this sort of thing last year when there was snow from Dunnet Head to Land’s End after the Met had stated categorically – CATEGORICALLY, comrades – that Britain would never see snow again due to AGW: the gorebots came up with some bullsh*t explanation about how warming causes cooling, and MiniTru repeated it without question.  We saw it when the gorebots were forced to admit that there hasn’t been any warming in a decade: they blathered about sulfur emissions from Chinese coal plants while MiniTru nodded its collective head and said, “Yes, of course.”

          It’s heads I win, tails you lose with these people, and they’ve got more excuses for why their theories don’t pan out than a snake oil salesman.

      • Anonymous

        Of course what was I thinking.

  • Anonymous

    Wonder how Al’s Chackra is holding up.

  • Anonymous

    This is obviously extremely complicated, as you can see by  checking the comments on RealClimate, but there still seems to be no trend line on cosmic rays for the last fifty years.

    • jim_m

      Dude,

      That’s because solar radiation goes in cycles since solar radiation is linked to sun spots. Cycles=no trend. Scientists have no problem linking solar radiation to changes in climate on Mars and Jupiter but are completely unwilling to do the same here. 

      AGW is losing sway with the pubic because the public has heard of the fraud and manipulation of scientists like Mann, Briffa and Hansen.  Particularly in Europe they have been informed about the climategate emails.People have experienced several brutally cold European winters now and now the coldest summer in 20 years in Britain.  Predictions like Polar Bear extinction, Himalayan glacier melting, polar ice melting, etc have all been shown false. 

      People see climate hucksters like Al Gore jetting about the world spreading panic in order to profit from it whilst acting in the exact opposite way they demand everyone else live.  And anyone paying attention to the whole thing will have noticed the the IPCC recommendations for reducing CO2 output would have such a small change in temperature globally that even by their inflated estimates we would still not be able to tell the difference between cutting CO2 and not cutting it.  We simply do not have the ability to measure global temperature that accurately.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7YIUZMXOD5JGZZTCYMVA75KFU Shadow

      It’s really not complicated.  The climate changes as weather conditions vary around the globe.  Sometimes there are more clouds in an area than at others and sometimes there is more sunshine.  It is as it has always been. 
      I am not a scientist, I didn’t receive millions in grant money to arrive at the findings the grantor wished, and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I know this to be so.

    • Anonymous

      Just like there seems to be no trend line that CO2 is wrecking the climate.

    • Anonymous

      Just like there seems to be no trend line that CO2 is wrecking the climate.

    • herddog505

      According to the gorebots, it’s NOT “complicated”: CO2 causes global warming.  Period.  That’s why the rush to close coal plants, build solar panels and wind farms, change CAFE standards, etc.  When something’s “complicated”, you study it more.  When there’s “consensus”, however, it’s full speed ahead on ZOMG! WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!

    • Anonymous

      Steve that has to be the shortest reply that you have ever made on global warming.

  • jim_m

    Once again we see the church (this time the church of global warming) persecuting those who refuse to believe that the universe is centered on the Earth (ie man).  Galileo was persecuted because he claimed that the planets revolved around the sun.  Today, scientists are persecuted for the heresy that the sun warms the planets.

    There’s really very little difference. People lose careers, livelihoods for speaking heresy.  Their lives are threatened. Defenders of the faith try to ostracize them and silence them.

    Perhaps in 400 years the descendants of Al Gore will issue an apology to the world.

    • Anonymous

      The story of Galileo being persecuted by the Catholic Church is overblown.  Here is a explanation, with this brief except I find interesting: “Galileo, who remained loyal to the Church to the very end of his life — and was even carried to daily mass when he became too feeble to walk — clearly understood that he had been the victim of an academic feud and that the Church had been drawn in on the side of his enemies only through beguilement.”  http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html
      There is a Brit who has a current book out on this subject who was recently on Medved.  I forget his name and am too lazy at this time to try and find out his name.  But, the gist of his remarks on Medved the same – much, much exaggeration in this legend. 

      • Anonymous

        How about “excerpt” instead of “except?”  Yeah, that makes a bit more sense.

  • Anonymous

    “Perhaps in 400 years the descendants of Al Gore will issue an apology to the world”

    For the lunch losing ‘Liplock’? Definitely!  For Albert’s exploiting and profiteering at the peasants expense? Never! 

  • Juan Carlos Girardi

    If the Cosmic Rays or the Sun are the cause of global warming of the last century then we should not be worried because in 50 years or less the humanity will become extinct. Nothing we can do. But if the reason of global warming its the human burn of fosils then we have a little chance.

    • https://plus.google.com/114041580398058374552/posts McGehee

      And your prediction is based on…?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Juan-Carlos-Girardi-Herrero/1205072057 Juan Carlos Girardi Herrero
      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Juan-Carlos-Girardi-Herrero/1205072057 Juan Carlos Girardi Herrero

        please think in it. First time in the history we are talking of sea rutes in artic sea. If the cause is the Sun…. then we can only hope it calms down and you know from 6º to 10º raise and the 90% of the habitated lands will be like the hell. Probably some people can survive but not the 7 billion  people lives in the earth. I hope its the human and not the Sun.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

          No, it’s not the first time.

          http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-nepass.htm

          Google is your friend, Juan.  Look up “arctic ice free 1935″ – there are many long-term cycles that reinforce or negate each other over time.

          Tell me, do you have problems with roller coasters?  Do you believe when you are going up that you’ll go into orbit and die from lack of air?  When you are going down, do you believe you will end up in the center of the earth and die from the heat?

          The world is constantly going through a number of cycles.  This is just one more of them.

  • Anonymous

    Basically, the Global Warming crowd is having the same reaction that “big-science” had the last time it was discovered that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t get your hope up AGW deniers,  this site might offer some fuller explanations on the as yet very speculative and probably minimal role of cosmic rays in increased global warming. Tthe scientists, behind the CERN study, don´t try to minimize AGW. 

    • Anonymous

      So the science isn’t settled?

      • Anonymous

        It is settled for the time being; an increase  or not in cr cosmic waves or some  as yet major negative feedback loop could slow global warming down, but co2 emisisons in the atmosphere  naturally  caused, going back 56 million years to the last great global warming period, to the present  man made ones, smaller portions but  as yet  but much faster rising, have always been linked with a corresponding temperature rise and global warming: That is pretty certain..

        • jim_m

          Look at the actual science Steve.   CO2 is actually a lagging indicator of warming not a leading (ie causative) factor.

  • Anonymous

    That doesn’t make so much sense, unless the ice melting releases much C02 but then again read this
     What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? from real Science.
    soemthing must be causing the globe to getting warmer and carvon emissions seem the best indicator. You are aware that a tliving in a big city is consierably warmer, because of the   green house gases especially at night than surrounding green areas i would say by about 4 degrees fahreheit ..so it stands to reason.Any satellite picture shows the extenttof industrialization/urbanization, population grrowth agriculture etc. Franlky I don´t know why it is so difficult to accept . since 1960 we have grown from 3  to 7 billion people on the globe in  2011 i would say urbanization and instrialiazation a  tleast quadrupled while the population has doubled..a lot of green house gases..

    • Ken in Camarillo

      1st: It doesn’t have to make sense, it’s the actual observed data (CO2 lags temp by about 800 years). It’s up to us to make sense of the actual observed data. (Maybe that’s a new concept for the AGW crowd).

      2nd: When the ocean heats up, more CO2 is released, increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2. The ocean has such a huge heat capacity that it is easy to understand a lag of 800 years rather than a year or month.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

      Carbon emissions only seem to be the best reason if you are pushing a political agenda and trying to disguise it as science.  As soon as I start seeming the global warming crowd stop pushing socialism as the ‘answer’ i might take them even a little bit seriously.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001388070596 Jeffrey Ostermiller

    All this global change, global warming nonsense reminds me of a reading by Charles Heston of a chapter from Jurassic Park.  It illustrates just how really insignificant we are in the greater scheme of things and how important it is to keep the world and our part in it in perspective.  Check out –  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozO4YB98mCY

  • Anonymous

    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.