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.
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.”
This is actually old news. I figured it would eventually make it here.
It’s so ironic, the same people who jump on this as true, are the ones denying global warming, saying the record breaking weather extremes are normal occurrences in earths history.
Being so caught in their own tautology, they now want to taut this as “the” true cause to something they believed never existed.
Imagine all the drugs they took as kids to enabled them to ignore their own contradictions.
So, the sun affects global warming.
Quote from Al Gore? Cue the crickets.
This, too, shall be ignored.
This story must be bogus since we all know that the science is in and every known scientist agrees that there is no such a thing as global warming. Nobody has ever disagreed with this. Nobody, ever. Besides, the fix is in.
#1. Question is…are you denying the science behind this? Does the suggestion that the planet Mars is also heating up hold any sway?
“Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
If it can’t exploited, what good is this so-called science.
What Will Al Do?
John, posts like these will get you arrested.
From NASA’s James Hansen:
‘This raises a question: if the Keystone XL pipeline is approved, can we make a citizen’s arrest on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for violating the Security Act? If they were put in the back of a hot paddy wagon in DC and held for at least several hours with their hands tied behind their backs, maybe they would have a chance to think over this matter more clearly.’
@McCullogh It is not just Mars. Coincidental warming of all the planets is well documented. Mars is the simplest to measure and explain followed by Jupiter and Saturn (there, similarly to Earth main consequence is intensifying storms and shift of large storms toward poles [ex. Giant Red Spot of Jupiter started moving “up” first time since seen by Galileo in 1990’s as well as spawned “baby red spot” – new Jupiter “hurricane”]).
Mars is also a perfect example of atmosphere where CO2 increase indeed causes greenhouse effect (no water vapor there in any significant amount to compete for thermal control of atmosphere).
CERN data also confirms the best known tracer of Earth global temperature until now – Be11 concentration: this is directly proportional to Solar high energy radiation (CERN adds Be10 related to “deep space” cosmic high energy radiation).
Now to the worst part: CERN attempted to GAG scientist from discussing this result
http://theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/
I will be any amount of money that the actual scientific paper does not say “the sun determines the temperature on Earth.” It might say something like “contributes to” or “impacts” but there is no way a scientist would make such a flat-out definitive causation statement.
RealClimate has already responded to this paper. You see, they didn’t actually prove that the sun and galactic cosmic rays cause climate change in the amount that has been observed. Therefore global warming theory stands unchallenged. Part of this theory is they know it is not natural variation because noone has proven that this is the case.
Its been about 3 weeks since I decided to become DOGMATIC about AGW. Therefore I must disagree with any assertion that GW is not AGW. I also will not read any more opposing views, because my mind is made up.
I will “assume” that even if true this cosmic ray theory is only additive to the AGW that is ALSO OCCURRING.
Amusing that the science regarding the modeling for the OTHER 163 VARIABLES are negated as too unreliable but the one variable that leads to the anti-AGW conclusion is accepted as true?===HAW HAW!!!!
Thats a good one.
Also–what does happen to all the carbon that has been dumped into the atmosphere for the last 150 years? Nuttin?
I do wonder if in a decade or two we will set nukes off in the Sahara to blow dust up into the atmosphere to cook us off. Imagine: we pay the House of Saud for the oil which pollutes, and then we pay the House of Saud for the right to blow up their desert to cool us off. Why does God hate us so and Allah love the House of Saud????
Yea, verily. (((Ah Crap. I guess I am going to have to read this closely at least once and see if my Dogma holds up? The data is going to have to match at least as closely as does the co2 loading and temp data AND as stated account for the co2 pollution AND explain why a carbon loading of 350ppm is not the tipping point? Some too simple thinkin going on here. Anti-dogma is like that.)))
This paper will be “disproved” because the climatologists and everyone poised to earn billions from carbon credits cannot make a buck off the truth.
I’m still wondering why this “Vaunted” blog still hasn’t posted about the “Fast and Furious” gunrunner coverup now that this coverup has been traced directly to the White House?
Watergate doesn’t even compare to this dictatorial, murderous, presidency.
#12–Oh No==how do you discount the evil money motives of the anti-AGW side? How many times/what other examples are there of==the consensus of qualified scientist being wrong when opposed by those vested monied interests?
Dogma does feel good.
Well, this thread should be amusing for a day or two.
You have a population of wolves and sheep. If there are more sheep, you will end up with more wolves, as they have more food. With more wolves, you will end up with less sheep, as they are eaten. Now with less sheep, you will get less wolves, as there is less food. With less wolves, you will get more sheep, as they are not being eaten, and the cycle continues.
Now if there is a time lag between these changes, what is obviously a cause and effect inverse correlation, will look like a positive correlation, that more wolves means more sheep!
Dr Spencer is arguing that climate models have assumed clouds are a positive feedback, because they have observed more clouds and higher temperatures, when in fact the effect is the opposite.
The cosmic ray theory says clouds cause cooler temperatures, cosmic rays cause clouds, and weaker sun allows more cosmic rays to get through. Third part is accepted by climate scientists. Second they say is unproven. And first they assume the opposite.
http://drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/
No worries, the climate scientists got GRL to publish a response within one month, when global warming skeptics take years to get rejected.
>what does happen to all the carbon that has been dumped into the atmosphere for the last 150 years? Nuttin?
Most of that carbon is gone.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/24/co2-discussion-thread/
Anyway you look at it, AGW is dead for the foreseeable future.
Too much “Reasonable Doubt” to invest billions of dollars into carbon credit schemes and the like which cannot be proven to do any good at all.
Give it another 20 years of meaningless back and forth. You can be sure nothing will happen before then.
Chicago Carbon Exchange dead. Solyndra and green jobs dead. Japan Russia Canada participation in Kyoto 2.0 dead. What remains is the European carbon reduction schemes, and the Australians, as well as the US EPA and various state initiatives.
Even if all of those actors did something, the amount of carbon reduced would be less than the amount of additional carbon emissions produced by China.
Well, I wanted to link to and read the original Nature article but I’m not gonna pay to read it. Maybe a link to Cern?
but this seemingly related source MAKES THIS ALL BUNK!!!!! yes—BUNK:
Headline in Nature News:
“Cloud formation MAY be linked to cosmic rays”
http://nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
for all of you non AGW dogmatic types that want to conflate the REMEDIES FOR AGW with the FACT OF AGW this is a good article to misrepresent.
Yeap–any whisper of another factor that “MAY HAVE” an effect on the consensus of qualified scientific opinion for the past 50 years can be thrown out the window.
YOU KNOW: 3-4 years ago I leaned towards AGW just because the arguments against it were so pathetic. They were in fact just like this one. How can we be discussing climate change, ((get it: CHANGE)) when the discussion never changes???? Ha, Ha. The science doesn’t change. Carbon is still a green house gas, we are still dumping billions of tons a year into the atmosphere. Where is it going?
The thing about science is that IT IS A ROBUST SYSTEM OF KNOWLEDGE. It self corrects.
Mike N–you have some links too? I’m still going to look for a better review of the Nature Article. So far, all I see is kneejerk Oh No’s jumping on any pile of dung that smells their way. Criticizing the consensus of qualified scientists as premature by substituting their own premature hopes and dreams. No self reflection at all on that one. Dogma does that to people.
Good subject though. How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind. It should be instructive if your mind works at all. Not to paint too black a picture mind you.
Yea verily.
At least the sun continues to rise in the East every morning. Algor can’t fuck with that paradigm.
Well, I at least tried to post some informative links, but the site “SPAM” filter didn’t like that I had so many links.
Maybe as the site note read, the kind, wise and benevolent site admin (John Dvorak the “site-admin”) will graciously restore the post.
I can only hope.
Here is the start of the Nature report and the Editors summary before you have to pay $32.
http://nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html
I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, or whack a stiff peepee “but” its one thing to identify a variable that “may” be more important than previously thought BUT that does NOT NEGATE the mountain of evidence regarding correlations of co2 to temp rise and fall.
This issue is Bull Crap masquerading as chocolate ice cream for the gullible to treat as desert. Ha, ha==how easy it is to flush the ignorant out of their hidey holes.
One point above, if Mars and other planets are indeed getting warmer it would not be because of human contributions of carbon. There are however many many other variables—NOT JUST ONE: THE COSMIC RED HERRING. Herrings generally school and are not found alone.
Basic scientific literacy is missing here. Oh No–you’re a business man if I recall? Better stick to be rich, you ain’t cutting it otherwise.
#18–Lyin’ Mike==thats not what your link says at all. Why do you post a link that immediately shows you are lying? Much better to have us just think you are an idiot that never links than for us to know you are an idiot that often links to misquoted or misrepresented links.
so silly, its almost amusing.
Eventually it’ll be a “See, I told you so!” moment for some and “Aww shut the fu*k up!” moment for the others. And the world turns.
# 24 bobbo, I’m getting too old to jump to conclusions–may I just watch you all do it? said,
“This issue is Bull Crap masquerading as chocolate ice cream for the gullible to treat as desert. Ha, ha==how easy it is to flush the ignorant out of their hidey holes.”
I like it.
If John Dvorak the “site-admin” would get off his crapper and do his job and restore my post, it would support your very colorful, if not smelly post.
Media Matters agrees the conservative media and their dogmatic idiot shills are being premature to the point of misrepresentation:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201108310023
Kinda reminds me on the conspiracy reviews regarding 9-11 right now. Convoluted to say the Jet at the Pentagon flew over the building and got blown up in secret somewhere else while the Pentagon itself got hit by a missle right where internal explosives had been planted.
Yeap–good new theories like that throw all the accrued evidence right out the window because you know someone just said something.
Get Real.
noname–I’d like to see your links. Why not post one at a time with a little summary as to their import?
works for me as shown above.
It took some work to arrange and get. I lost them when I tried to post. Sorry, but I really don’t want to repeat the exercise.
What’s wrong with paying the horny poodle Al Gore a life tax so he can shake his magic stick over our heads and make it all better?