LONGECITY

Uh-Oh. This is a large blow to the Global Warming Establishment:

Source: http://opinion.finan...ce-now-settled/

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Nature Article: http://www.nature.co...s.2011.504.html

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.
The findings, published today in Nature¹, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

Edited by firespin, 29 August 2011 - 02:27 AM.

OK, but who needs to care about global warming this time? It looks like as if the greatest risk for all advanced life on this planet are just the very experiments created with CERN's own particle accelerator itself. See http://www.longecity...-earth-required + http://www.longecity...post__p__474712 + http://www.longecity...rillion-dollars or this German page http://www.longecity...ichen-gelehrten which translation http://babelfish.yah...TrUrl=Translate into English has to be provisional as is. Also check out the article you have already linked through http://opinion.finan...nce-now-settled for CERN keeping their political agenda in line with their supporting governments, two citations: "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..." + "... this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success." So these physics bureaucrats must be prevented from abusing our only living planet in the entire solar system as their private laboratory space yielding the highest existential risk for all advanced life.

No reason to alarmist denialism. Read this too (and the comments): http://www.realclima...ly-interesting/

Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

Uh-Oh. This is a large blow to the Global Warming Establishment:

Hi firespin.

A large boon to wingnuttery, perhaps, but hardly a "blow" to the "Global Warming Establishment". Do people think that there were never cosmic rays in the past? Is there a significant correlation between observed warming and levels of cosmic radiation? Is anyone saying these aerosols are responsible for more than a tiny fraction of observed warming? No, No, and no. Well, except for the usual denialists.

This study showed evidence of creation of crystals that could cause condensation. To relate these findings to the real world and to global warming, there are still some issues. The crystals are of the incorrect size and conform the model they would materialize at the incorrect altitude to have effect. But results are promising nevertheless for improving insight in climatological phenomenon.

The conclusions as presented above are a typical case of premature extrapolation of laboratory research in test tubes towards what really happens in the earths atmosphere. Albeit a big and complicated test tube, but a test tube just the same.
Edited by Brainbox, 29 August 2011 - 07:55 PM.

CERN scientists say a lot of things, but I'm pretty sure none of them said "Climate change is caused by the sun", or even implied such a thing.

Exactly. Some journalists did however. And one scientist that worked somewhere in the periphery of the research team......

To clarify my position, I'm quite sceptic about the conclusion that human activity is the only or major contribution to climate change, but that there is such a contribution is clear. For a lot of reasons we should move to green and clean resource usage, of which the preventive effect on our climate change is only one.

But to misuse research results by misinterpretation for political or carreer gain is beyond me. Highly disgusting.
Edited by Brainbox, 30 August 2011 - 06:38 PM.

Uh-Oh. This is a large blow to the Global Warming Establishment:

Hi firespin.

A large boon to wingnuttery, perhaps, but hardly a "blow" to the "Global Warming Establishment". Do people think that there were never cosmic rays in the past? Is there a significant correlation between observed warming and levels of cosmic radiation? Is anyone saying these aerosols are responsible for more than a tiny fraction of observed warming? No, No, and no. Well, except for the usual denialists.

99% of “global warming activists” and the public I have talk to in the past about climate change have the idea of global warming is caused entirely by humans. Most "global warmists" totally disregard any idea that it could be caused by different reasons, or the fact that earth warmed and cooled several times in the past and this could be a natural cycle. Scientists who suggest that global warming is not happening or that such could be caused by other reasons often have a hard time getting funding due to politics or is rebuked by global warming ideologists. The case that the whole global warming moment is based entirely on the belief that humans is causing global warming/climate change certainly makes this a blow, especially considering there is no evidence that it is caused by humans. A credible group of scientists now bring evidence for a different cause of climate change, and never mind this decade had some very cold winters.

Funny thing I have heard claims from global warmists that both hot and cold weather is caused by global warming, (which is the fault of humans). I guess that is trying to cover all bases. The problem though when you make claims like this without evidence that makes people doubt you. Also it is not just “wingnuts” that doubt humans cause global warming, there are quite a lot of independents and liberals as well…or else the global warmists would have probably had their way by now creating any extreme environmental law that they desired.

I am not saying there is no climate change at all, but I very much doubt that humans is a significant cause of it.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 30% or more in 150 years can't possibly change anything, of course, as the link below shows.

global-warming-national-review-jim-lacey

and there is no real evidence smoking causes cancer, either.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 30% or more in 150 years can't possibly change anything, of course, as the link below shows.

It could. What we need is a good estimate of the increase in temp in relation to the increase of CO2.

We have that, but it is being discredited in the radical conservative press.

Nah, that number varies by a huge amount 2C - 4.5C according to wikipedia. Also consider that effects such as cosmic rays promoting clouds have been ignored so far.

That's over 100% range. If they can't make predictions then it can't be tested. If it can't be tested, then it's not worth destroying economies over it.

There is really no credible explanation what else could be causing the observed warming we are seeing. Solar flare cycles, earth's orbit eccentricities or tilt of axis, cosmic rays, et al don't even begin to account for it. The only thing left is CO2, and observed warming is roughly in line with what one would predict from CO2 levels. Would that there were another explanation.

The issue mentioned here, cosmic radiation causing cloud formation has never been included in the research.

Nah, that number varies by a huge amount 2C - 4.5C according to wikipedia. Also consider that effects such as cosmic rays promoting clouds have been ignored so far.

That's over 100% range. If they can't make predictions then it can't be tested. If it can't be tested, then it's not worth destroying economies over it.

While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming. So whatever link there may be is miniscule, and cannot account for observed changes. See this

As for change, 2 to 4.5 degrees is about an order of magnitude on a natural log scale, which isn't bad as first approximations go. But we have good measurements of temperature increase, and of CO2 increase since 1820, despite concerted efforts tp discredit the measurements. and the uncertainty is nowhere near that great. Or if you mean predicted future increase, even the low estimates will be devastating, and the higher estimates catastrophic.

The higher estimates look increasingly likely as we discover more and more positive feedback mechanisms, and so far no negative feedbacks.

As for shibboleth about wrecking the economy, sustainable wind, solar et al would be as great a contributor toour economy as fossil fuels. Already in Australia, solaris on par with coal for generating power.: Solar energy cost hits par with coal fuel
5 breakthroughs that will make solar power cheaper than coal

www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/5-breakthroughs-that-will-make-solar-power-cheaper-than-coal


Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1WcuVpzBi
Edited by maxwatt, 31 August 2011 - 05:03 PM.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 30% or more in 150 years can't possibly change anything, of course, as the link below shows.

It could. What we need is a good estimate of the increase in temp in relation to the increase of CO2.

Yes, it could, but maybe not. What we know is the correlation, not the causality. Maybe the extra CO2 is caused by global warming due to reduced CO2 gass dissolving capacity of the oceans as a result of temperature increase.

Yes, it could, but maybe not. What we know is the correlation, not the causality. Maybe the extra CO2 is caused by global warming due to reduced CO2 gass dissolving capacity of the oceans as a result of temperature increase.

How does that fit together with the observed ocean acidification?

Yes, it could, but maybe not. What we know is the correlation, not the causality. Maybe the extra CO2 is caused by global warming due to reduced CO2 gass dissolving capacity of the oceans as a result of temperature increase.

How does that fit together with the observed ocean acidification?

Estimates of the CO2 increase, in both atmosphere and ocean, correlate well with the amount of CO2 we have released by burning fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. There is no phenomena klnow that can account for the temperature increase other than human activity.


Ocean acidification? Fortunately that has slowed over the past decade as the oceans lose the ability to hold any more CO2. (There was a paper on this in Nature earlier this year.) This is fortunate, acidification of seawater slows the growth of ocean organisms using calcium for skeletons and shells, to the point some biologists feared a mass die-off, which may still happen, if not as soon . But decreased ability of the oceans to absorb more CO2 is bad, in that it's going into the atmosphere and increasing warming even more.

I wish I could give positive votes to everyone who points out the pathetic logic of the denialists, but alas, I have reached my 'quota' of positive votes for the day.

Climate change/global warming/global cooling has happened many many times over the history of the Earth's existence. Climate change happened before there were people in the picture and it will continue to happen whether or not we continue to be in the picture. Some people's egos are bigger than the Sun and therefor feel they have more power over the environment than the Sun. Gore and the like remind me of those ancient mystics that gained all sorts of power and prestige by claiming they could blot out the Sun, when in fact they were just predicting an eclipse, something they had absolutely no control over, they just had knowledge of workings that the "common folk" didn't possess.

So far, the editor of Remote Sensing which published Spenser's paper, has fallen on his sword: resigned and apologized for publishing a biased paper. Climate Scientists were quick to point out that the paper is a rehash of a 2001 publication, found at the time to be a "one-dimensional analysis guilty of cherry-picking data.:"

We/ now have a published study showing cloud formation is driven by climate, rather than the other way around.

New Research Examines Role of Clouds in Climate Change

So far, the editor of Remote Sensing which published Spenser's paper, has fallen on his sword: resigned and apologized for publishing a biased paper. Climate Scientists were quick to point out that the paper is a rehash of a 2001 publication, found at the time to be a "one-dimensional analysis guilty of cherry-picking data.:"

Sounds like the Peer-Review Mafia got to him.

It was a lousy paper.

As for the misquotes of the CERN paper, Daily Kos reviewed it here: Blowing Smoke about Clouds

...
Occasionally you need to know some science to spot the BS in a newspaper science article, but most of the time you just need some common sense. Start with: Does the content of the article justify the headline?

Not this time. The article discusses new research about cloud formation that CERN scientists recently published in Nature (another one of the biggest names in science). But nobody at CERN is quoted saying, "Humans aren't responsible for climate change."

In fact, the article doesn't quote anybody from CERN (or Nature). Who, then? Lawrence Solomon, David Whitehouse, and Nigel Calder. If you're just skimming, you might assume at least one of them represents CERN, but they don't.

Who are they? In the Age of Google, that's an easy question. ...

• Solomon is the author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so.
• Whitehouse is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described by SourceWatch as "a United Kingdom group opposing action to mitigate climate change". Funded by ... they won't say.
• Calder (according to Wikipedia) is "a long-standing skeptic of global warming"; who "participated in the polemic film The Great Global Warming Swindle."

So a more accurate headline would be: "Global-Warming Skeptics Claim New CERN Research Vindicates Them". Except it doesn't.
Edited by maxwatt, 08 September 2011 - 08:32 PM.

Editors are generally not forced to resign for allowing a "lousy paper". His fault was allowing a "skeptic paper" to pass peer review, for which he was punished.

His fault was letting a politically motivated junk paper get published, A legitimate paper showing negative feedback from warming, would be hailed as good news by climate scientists.

I can only speculate why he actually resigned, or published the paper. His stated reasons for accepting it (lack of expertise in the area) both do not ring true, nor if true would not have necessitated resignation. Perhaps he has now taken a position at the Heartland Institute?

Again, the news release that is the topic of this thread completely misrepresented the CERN paper, which showbed nothing of hte kind.

FWIW, the cost per kilowat of solar is now less than for a coal plant in all of Australia, except in the extreme southeast and Tasmania.

The cost is only less due to the large subsidies for solar power.

I'll get downvoted for this, but I don't really care. Global warming is real and present - the question is what causes it. I think the case for anthropogenic global warming is shaky. I think that other factors in the complex system that constitutes our planet may be at play as well.

This isn't to say we shouldn't pursue green technologies - by all means, this would be best. However, it may be premature to conclude that we are the cause of global warming.

EDIT: Fortunately or unfortunately for us, this may happen: Earth may be Headed Into Mini Ice Age Within a Decade
Edited by Elus, 09 September 2011 - 02:14 PM.

Cool, I like skiing....

But on a more serious note:

How does that fit together with the observed ocean acidification?

Would that make any difference? CO2 concentration in the oceans will be reduced regardless cause or consequence of warming?

I'll get downvoted for this, but I don't really care. Global warming is real and present - the question is what causes it. I think the case for anthropogenic global warming is shaky. I think that other factors in the complex system that constitutes our planet may be at play as well.

This isn't to say we shouldn't pursue green technologies - by all means, this would be best. However, it may be premature to conclude that we are the cause of global warming.

EDIT: Fortunately or unfortunately for us, this may happen: Earth may be Headed Into Mini Ice Age Within a Decade

I agree.

Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

The cost is only less due to the large subsidies for solar power.

It's not that simple, and the direct subsidy has been phased out.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feed-in tariffs in Australia have been enacted by several State Governments for electricity generated by solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Feed-in tariff (FIT) are a premium rate paid to producers of renewable energy. They are a way of subsidising renewable energy and are implemented in conjunction with mandatory renewable energy targets. Both net and gross feed in tariffs have been introduced by various governments. Net FIT's generally pay comparatively little to the producer (generally a household) because electricity produced by solar photovoltaic or other renewable energy just offsets the producer's usage. Gross tariffs provide a more certain financial return and pay the household for all electricity produced, even if it is consumed by the producer, reducing or helping meet peak demand.
The ACT and New South Wales have gross feed-in tariffs. Other State Governments have enacted net feed-in tariff schemes which have been criticised for not providing enough incentive for households to install solar panels and thus for not effectively encouraging the uptake of solar PV.^[1]
A uniform federal scheme to supersede all State schemes has been proposed by Tasmanian Greens Senator Christine Milne, but not enacted.

The net result is that when it is needed, solar will be in place and cheaper than carbon based sources.