Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

The Jehoshua Novels


C.E.R.N Scientific Study Concludes ”“ Global Warming is Caused By The Sun!

Sun

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun ”” not human activities ”” as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

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. Source

6 comments to C.E.R.N Scientific Study Concludes ”“ Global Warming is Caused By The Sun!

  • adrena

    eom


    Sexual inequality is “The Mother of all Inequalities”.
    Liberate female sexuality and you will eliminate racism, homophobia, financial greed, and violence.

  • Anonymous

    The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…

    Real Climate, By gavin, August 24

    The long-awaited first paper from the CERN/CLOUD project has just been published in Nature. The paper, by Kirkby et al, describes changes in aerosol nucleation as a function of increasing sulphates, ammonia and ionisation in the CERN-based ‘CLOUD’ chamber. Perhaps surprisingly, the key innovation in this experimental set up is not the presence of the controllable ionisation source (from the Proton Synchrotron accelerator), but rather the state-of-the-art instrumentation of the chamber that has allowed them to see in unprecedented detail what is going on in the aerosol nucleation process (this is according to a couple of aerosol people I’ve spoken about this with).

    [...]

    However, aerosol nucleation experiments are not usually front page news, and the likely high public profile of this paper is only loosely related to the science that is actually being done. Rather, the excitement is based on the expectation that this work will provide some insight into the proposed cosmic ray/cloud/climate link that Svensmark (for instance) has claimed is the dominant driver of climate change (though note he is not an author on this paper, despite an earlier affiliation with the project). Indeed, the first justification for the CLOUD experiment was that: “The basic purpose of the CLOUD detector … is to confirm, or otherwise, a direct link between cosmic rays and cloud formation by measuring droplet formation in a controlled test-beam environment”. It is eminently predictable that the published results will be wildly misconstrued by the contrarian blogosphere as actually proving this link. However, that would be quite wrong.

    We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

    1. … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
    2. … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
    3. … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
    4. … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

    Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).

    Figure 2: Normalised changes in cosmic rays since 1953. There has not been a significant downward trend. The exceptional solar minimum in 2008-2010 stands out a little.

      
    The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).


    One owes respect to the living. To the dead, one owes only the truth.

  • Anonymous

    http://project-cloud.web.cern.ch/project-CLOUD/People/Publications.html#

    Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation (Kirkby et al., Nature, 25 August 2011)

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

    Editor’s summary
    Cloud cover at CERN

    A substantial source of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer is thought to originate from the nucleation of trace sulphuric acid vapour. Despite extensive research, we still lack a quantitative understanding of the nucleation mechanism and the possible role of cosmic rays, creating one of the largest uncertainties in atmospheric models and climate predictions. Jasper Kirkby and colleagues present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN, which studies nucleation and other ion-aerosol cloud interactions under precisely controlled conditions. They find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles by more than a factor of 100 to 1,000. They also find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere, but is negligible in the boundary layer and so additional species are necessary. Even with the large enhancements in rate caused by ammonia and ions, they conclude that atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary layer nucleation.

    My interpretation:

    Per the study, relative concentrations of NH3 and H2SO4 ions are not sufficient to explain the formation of clouds and they suspect cosmic rays may have something to do with cloud formation.

    Cosmic rays may originate from the sun AND also from other stars and deep space.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

    Now, is there a correlation between a change in cloud cover and climate change (global warming) ? There might be, but the Nature article or CERN’s research does not make that conclusion.

    That conclusion (first paragraph) is bloody demagoguery, IMHO.

  • adrena

    the article I linked to. About gagging scientists etc.

    Why the need to make false claims?


    Sexual inequality is “The Mother of all Inequalities”.
    Liberate female sexuality and you will eliminate racism, homophobia, financial greed, and violence.

  • Anonymous

    But at the article that that article links to (“Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled“) there are plenty.

    Yes, there are always those who are willing to debate. Those people generally fall into one of the two camps. The first camp is those who trust modernity in the form of science and scientists; the other camp are paranoid for some reason or another, or are funded by oil and coal companies.

    I notice that over at Zero Hedge, for instance, most are virulently anti global warming. I presume that’s because they are afraid of the carbon tax that’s been proposed to help wean us from carbon use. Also, they tend to be libertarians and hate big government, which, of course, is all this cockamamie global warming thing is in the first place, an attempt to increase the size of the government and ultimately result in one world government.

    It’s all very complicated, you see, all interconnected.

    Anyway, I now understand that you mean the debate within the article, which references Nigel Calder [wikipedia]. First, he’s quoting a Google-translated version of a Die Welt article, which might be missing a nuance or two present in the German. He quotes Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN:

    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 doesn’t sound like a gag order so much as good advice. This experiment was designed to test a specific hypothesis, under the artificial circumstances of the CERN test chamber. To extrapolate to real-world conditions, not to mention their applicability to Global Warming, would be a giant unsupportable leap without more evidence. The Real Climate article that I linked to has this passage:

    The other intriguing finding is that aerosol nucleation rates in the chamber don’t match (by a an order of magnitude or more) actual formation rates seen in real world near-surface atmospheric layers at realistic temperatures (only in unrealistically cold conditions do rates come close). The authors speculate (quite convincingly) that this is precisely because they didn’t have enough volatile organic compounds (which are ubiquitous in the real world) to help get the nucleation started. This result will surely inspire some of their next experiments.

    which describes just one difference between the real world and the experiment within the CERN chamber.

    The science is solid that global warming is anthropogenic, carbon-caused, and will be quite disruptive. Prudence dictates that if we wish to reduce the amount of global warming risk, we should take steps to reduce the carbon that we are polluting the atmosphere and oceans with. “Skeptics” would really like to continue their lives in comfort, burning our remaining coal and oil until there’s nothing left, because to do otherwise reduces their profits or otherwise disrupts their privileged positions. It might even upset their world view.


    One owes respect to the living. To the dead, one owes only the truth.

  • adrena


    Sexual inequality is “The Mother of all Inequalities”.
    Liberate female sexuality and you will eliminate racism, homophobia, financial greed, and violence.

Leave a Reply