CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experiment/

Best known for its studies of the fundamental constituents of matter, the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva is now also being used to study the climate. Researchers in the CLOUD collaboration have released the first results from their experiment designed to mimic conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere. By firing beams of particles from the lab’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, they have discovered that cosmic rays could have a role to play in climate by enhancing the production of potentially cloud-seeding aerosols. –Physics World, 24 August 2011

If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal.–Terry Sloan, BBC News 3 April 2008


Henrik Svensmark welcomes the new results, claiming that they confirm research carried out by his own group, including a study published earlier this year showing how an electron beam enhanced production of clusters inside a cloud chamber. He acknowledges that the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation will not be proved until aerosols that are large enough to act as condensation surfaces are studied in the lab, but believes that his group has already found strong evidence for the link in the form of significant negative correlations between cloud cover and solar storms. Physics World, 24 August 2011

CERN’s CLOUD experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant” one according to CERN. –David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 25 August 2011

I have asked the CERN 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. –Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, Welt Online 15 July 2011

Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise. –-Nigel Calder, 24 August 2011

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “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.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice. –Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 23 Feb 2007
 
Let me guess... those guys at CERN work for the oil industry.
 
Obviously, that guy is no different than a racist and a Holocaust denier.
 
Strangely enough, Al Gore has made a $100M fortune from the hoax.

Don't forget the Noble Peace Prize.

I'd say most people who study climate have less respect for Al Gore than you do. I wish people would stop using him as the poster boy for a scientific theory.
 
I guess this is relevant as well

Republicans Against Science

Belongs in the funny papers.

This is the same Krugman whose economic models led him to predict rapid return to inflation in 1983.

And the CERN experiment is rather conclusive that the 97% voting scientists are on the wrong side. I bet Krugman would believe the world is flat if 97% of scientists said so in some vote.
 
Don't forget the Noble Peace Prize.

I'd say most people who study climate have less respect for Al Gore than you do. I wish people would stop using him as the poster boy for a scientific theory.

You use an astrologer, basically, as a poster boy, tho.
 
Some interesting questions raised by the research. I could do without the bullshit commentary like this:

Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.

I won't bother debating the science because no one on this forum is interested in it.

It's interesting that your 2nd post criticizes those who question the messenger and not the content of the message. But then you turn around and criticize Krugman, ignoring all of his message on the subject.

It's naive of you to think this study negates all of AGW research. It's not conclusive at all.
"This change is very likely too small to explain the effect on clouds reported by Svensmark," he says. "We must continue to explore other potential physical connections between cosmic rays and clouds."
Kirkby shares Pierce's caution. He argues that CLOUD's results "say nothing about cosmic-ray effects on clouds" because the aerosols produced in the experiment are far too small to seed clouds. But he adds that the collaboration will have some "interesting new results" to present later this year regarding the role of organic molecules in aerosol formation. "What is needed now to settle this question are precise, quantitative measurements," he adds.

There are big holes in the AGW theory. There are big holes in the theory evolution. There are big holes in the theory of relativity. Just because you have strong feelings on it doesn't make you right.
 
Last edited:
Just because you have strong feelings on it doesn't make you right.

The first rule of S2 is that if you feel strongly about something, then you are right and the experts are wrong and/or engaged in a conspiracy.

barfo
 
Check out the sources quoted. Like Physics Magazine.

The actual key thing that comes out of this is the models not only have manipulated data put into them, but this CERN result/variable is one of thousands missing from the models. Humans are imperfect, hence the models always will be.

As I've posted a few times before, if models were good enough for much simpler things than a whole planet's geology and atmosphere, they wouldn't need crash dummies in Detroit. They'd just tell us their models say the cars are safe!
 
The first rule of S2 is that if you feel strongly about something, then you are right and the experts are wrong and/or engaged in a conspiracy.

barfo

Gotta admit, this statement is pretty much on the mark.
 
All I see in the OP is Physics Today saying that cosmic rays coming in from other stars may affect aerosols in our clouds. Then the OP quotes a few political pundits saying this disproves the millions of measurements showing climate change. Climate change says that the average temperature is rising and will continue, forcing most people and crops to migrate away from the equator and coasts, costing untold money.

Republicans must know more science than I do, so can you explain the connection between the science announcement and your political conclusion?
 
Where are the glaciers that covered the great lakes? Gasp, they're gone! It's Man's fault, of course.

Of course the earth's been warming, but it has been doing so for the last 10,000 years since the last ice age ended. There was no industrial revolution 10,000 years ago, though. That's a giant hole in the man-made global warming theory.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he'd be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun's role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "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." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature.

Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby's path-breaking experiment -- seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal-- was put on ice.

Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.

...

The IPCC draft report ranks the sun as an all-but-irrelevant factor in climate change. More oddly, it has come to this conclusion although it states that there is no consensus among solar scientists, meaning the IPCC admits it has no hard evidence to go on. Even more oddly, given the excitement and the anticipation that the CLOUD experiment is generating among the 6,500 particle physicists in CERN's community, the IPCC has decided to diminish the sun's estimated contribution to climate change by more than half, from its previously small contribution to one that is yet smaller.

Meanwhile, scientists who tout the manmade theory of global warming to the exclusion of others continue to disparage the CLOUD experiment. "This link is not properly established for the moment," said Dr. Urs Neu of the Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change, a prominent critic. "The cosmic ray theory has been used by people who want to deny human influence on global warming."

...

Now, to head off attacks, and controversies that might once again derail the CLOUD product, he hides his hopes and downplays the significance of what CLOUD may find: "If there really is an effect, then it would simply be part of the climate-change cocktail," a perhaps less naive, more politic Dr. Kirkby now states.
 
Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby's path-breaking experiment -- seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal-- was put on ice.
This is so much bullshit. Show me an article with all these scientists condemning Kirby's recent findings.

I googled his name and all of the top results were like the article you posted, right wingers disparaging climate scientists. "Oh, they're trying to suppress this research! It's a conspiracy! You'll never hear about this in the 'lame-stream' media."

Bullshit. I found articles about this research on the AP, Telegraph, Financial Post, The Economist, BBC, Canada Free Press, Ars Technica, International Business Times. Even the fucking Guardian and "ultra-liberal" MSNBC had articles on the study.

BTW, Real Climate had an awesome article on the research. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...rncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

Most scientists don't care about the politics. All of the people I know doing climate research are not married to AGW or cosmic ray theory or any other theory. They just want to understand the climate better.

The IPCC draft report ranks the sun as an all-but-irrelevant factor in climate change. More oddly, it has come to this conclusion although it states that there is no consensus among solar scientists, meaning the IPCC admits it has no hard evidence to go on. Even more oddly, given the excitement and the anticipation that the CLOUD experiment is generating among the 6,500 particle physicists in CERN's community, the IPCC has decided to diminish the sun's estimated contribution to climate change by more than half, from its previously small contribution to one that is yet smaller.
Do you know which report this refers to? I couldn't find any of these assertions in their latest draft report: http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session33/draft_report_p33.pdf
 
I still fail to see the point. Denny's last post says that global warming has been happening for 10,000 years. He gives a backup reason if that fails--that the cause is outside the Earth.

I don't care what the cause is. That's just a diversionary tactic. What matters is that it's happening and will turn civilizaton upside-down within a century. Everyone will move away from the equator and coasts, and every piece of property will have to be rebuilt at the new locations. The migration will cost trillions, but it will cost less if billions are put into either 1) a giant plan to migrate and massively rebuild or 2) technology installed into industry and factories right where they are now.

My point is, your information about the cause isn't relevant, as long as you admit it's happening. The scientists you cite are debating the cause, not the fast-rising temperatures themselves.
 
I've consistently said it's happening. If we truly fear the kinds of outcomes predicted by the alarmists, we'd be much better off using the $trillions they want to use to put us back in the stone age instead to move Miami inland a couple hundred miles so the people won't drown.
 
This is so much bullshit. Show me an article with all these scientists condemning Kirby's recent findings.

I googled his name and all of the top results were like the article you posted, right wingers disparaging climate scientists. "Oh, they're trying to suppress this research! It's a conspiracy! You'll never hear about this in the 'lame-stream' media."

Bullshit. I found articles about this research on the AP, Telegraph, Financial Post, The Economist, BBC, Canada Free Press, Ars Technica, International Business Times. Even the fucking Guardian and "ultra-liberal" MSNBC had articles on the study.

BTW, Real Climate had an awesome article on the research. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...rncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

Most scientists don't care about the politics. All of the people I know doing climate research are not married to AGW or cosmic ray theory or any other theory. They just want to understand the climate better.


Do you know which report this refers to? I couldn't find any of these assertions in their latest draft report: http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session33/draft_report_p33.pdf

This link:
http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/01/25/lawrence-solomon-has-the-ipcc-discovered-the-sun/

Plus the date on the report you linked to (10-13 May),

Plus the date on the CLOUD experiment report

completely validates what's said in the article:

"Even more oddly, given the excitement and the anticipation that the CLOUD experiment is generating among the 6,500 particle physicists in CERN's community, the IPCC has decided to diminish the sun's estimated contribution to climate change by more than half, from its previously small contribution to one that is yet smaller."

As for Kirkby, if you want to refute what's been written recently, you need to find mainstream articles from 1998. It's taken almost 13 years for him to find funding or approval to go ahead with his study.

Again I quote:

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he'd be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun's role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "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." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature.

Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby's path-breaking experiment -- seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal-- was put on ice.
 

This article links to a paper by the Danish National Space Center. Do you have a link to the IPCC draft report referred to in the article? I'm interested in what it actually says. It could be what the article states, but it seems fishy.

As for Kirkby, if you want to refute what's been written recently, you need to find mainstream articles from 1998. It's taken almost 13 years for him to find funding or approval to go ahead with his study.

Did a little Google search from 1997 to 2000 on Dr. Kirby. This is the only article that came back:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=5632,47410&dq=jasper+kirkby&hl=en
Granted, if I had time I could go to the archives at the library and probably find more.

I see no evidence he faced resistance due his cosmic ray theory.

Lawrence Solomon has created this narrative that there is a big conspiracy to suppress research that goes against AGW. He seems more interested in sensationalizing the debate rather than discussing the actual science. I'm always skeptical of people that appeal more to emotion than intellect.
 
Whether or not Kirkby is correct that the Sun is the cause, he's not denying that there is a problem. He is not denying that global warming is happening too fast for civilization to avoid a lot of pain unless something expensive is done.

From what I can see, any disagreement among scientists is over the cause, not over the giant consequences if we fail to address the problem. For those who deny global warming is a problem, Kirkby is an opponent, not an ally as your pundits pretend.
 
During the 1970s, scientists were warning that we might be on the verge of an ice age. Not because of global warming, either.

It's common sense that the climate is changing all the time. On the micro scale, it's 5 degrees cooler here today than it was yesterday. It depends on what time of day, too. On a macro scale, the earth has to be warmer now than 10,000 years ago or there'd still be glaciers covering Detroit.

The mistake is to assume there's some interpolation going on. If the earth was 20 degrees cooler those 10,000 years ago, the temperature didn't necessarily rise by 20/10,000 of a degree each year. It looks like the earth has been cooling for the last decade, and there was a big temperature drop in the dark/middle ages (that solar activity accounts for).

Interpolation is a flaw with the theory of evolution, too. Things don't evolve from single cells to humans over time due to mutation. There have been a number of near extinction level events that set things backward by millions of years, or otherwise reshuffle the deck so some very different outcome finally resulted.
 
This article links to a paper by the Danish National Space Center. Do you have a link to the IPCC draft report referred to in the article? I'm interested in what it actually says. It could be what the article states, but it seems fishy.



Did a little Google search from 1997 to 2000 on Dr. Kirby. This is the only article that came back:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=5632,47410&dq=jasper+kirkby&hl=en
Granted, if I had time I could go to the archives at the library and probably find more.

I see no evidence he faced resistance due his cosmic ray theory.

Lawrence Solomon has created this narrative that there is a big conspiracy to suppress research that goes against AGW. He seems more interested in sensationalizing the debate rather than discussing the actual science. I'm always skeptical of people that appeal more to emotion than intellect.

Your newspaper article was kind in saying "scientists disagree" but follow the money! Where did his funding go (away) for a decade?
 
During the 1970s, scientists were warning that we might be on the verge of an ice age.

A couple of them speculated. But now there is a consensus and a very broad range of data.

It's common sense that the climate is changing all the time.

True, but this is science, not common sense. They have the numbers to show that this is very unusual. 2nd answer: You might say that this happened 800 years ago or 5000 years ago or something according to tree rings. But world population, and the amount of effort put into buildings, is a thousand times higher now. The calamity will be far greater.
 
A couple of them speculated. But now there is a consensus and a very broad range of data.



True, but this is science, not common sense. They have the numbers to show that this is very unusual. 2nd answer: You might say that this happened 800 years ago or 5000 years ago or something according to tree rings. But world population, and the amount of effort put into buildings, is a thousand times higher now. The calamity will be far greater.

Ok, so just to be clear...

What exactly are you proposing?

How much is it going to cost?

Will I only be able to read at night by candle light when your plan is implemented?

Today, I spend almost no time gathering energy and food. This allows me to be productive doing more interesting things. How is your plan going to change this?
 
During the 1970s, scientists were warning that we might be on the verge of an ice age. Not because of global warming, either.
This is a pretty common misconception. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage, much like we see today with news outlets overstating the effects of man-made global warming.

A survey of the scientific literature found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty common misconception. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage, much like we see today with news outlets overstating the effects of man-made global warming.

A survey of the scientific literature found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

Follow the money... It made the cover of Time Magazine.
 
Ok, so just to be clear...
What exactly are you proposing?
How much is it going to cost?

There are 2 ways to do this. 1) In the next half-century, everyone moves farther from the equator and the coasts. Whatever heat level you like, move 400 miles north and you'll still have it. 2) Change the chemicals that factories and cars are emitting. This sounds a lot easier. The captains of industry don't want to because it will be a lot of work and it will cost a lot.

As for the specific line item costs you request, I'm an accountant, not a scientist, damn it, Capt. Kirk! That plan will have to evolve in concert with other nations.

I would like to brag, though, that I have a very specific line item plan for balancing the budget...just copy however it was done last time, in the late Clinton years. Relatively painless. Bush doubled intelligence employees--halve them back. He started wars--end them. He cut taxes for the rich--reverse that.
 
When it comes to the climate change issue, I'm always amazed at (1) how easily non-scientists discard the work that scientists do and act as if they are somehow more in the know than scientists who live the stuff every day and (2) how easily people cite the work of hacks as proof that climate change is not occurring.

That said, you don't get more solid than CERN and some of the other recent articles have been interesting in raising the possiblity that climate change isn't occurring. It will be interesting to see how things pan out as more our understanding gets refined.

The one thing I know for sure is that anyone who says they absolutely know what's going on with climate change is an absolute idiot and shouldn't be trusted.
 
Most scientists don't care about the politics. All of the people I know doing climate research are not married to AGW or cosmic ray theory or any other theory. They just want to understand the climate better.
I agree with you for the most part on this, but there's a significant difference. For one, most of the people I know doing climate research (and I'm not in the field, but I AM pretty heavily into R&D/S&T) are looking for grants to continue their research, which may have the motivation you describe ("we just want to understand the science better!") but also comes with strings from the funding sources. So there's a potential conflict of interest b/c of how mainstream the "science" has been broadcast (unlike, say, string theory grants or gene mapping research, etc) and an implicit requirement to "prove" whatever action has been proposed has a scientific basis. "Reduce emissions 60%! Increase gas mileage! Go to electric cars! No 'smoke' allowed to come out of reactors! Sign Kyoto!"

I have no problems with scientists trying to figure things out. I have a problem with Chicken Littles saying that the US has to unilaterally self-impose sanctions and invest in not-ready-for-prime-time technology based upon guesses without a solid scientific basis. I see little reason for Ford to be required to have an MPG requirement on their domestic cars when China and India can put up as many coal plants as they'd like.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top