CERN: Global Warming Caused by Sun

[Lord Beria3]

Wouldn't want to piss on anybodys parade here but I have always maintained that the sun has a powerful role in climatic history and the many climatic changes.

Of course, humanity is a factor behind changing climate, but only ONE factor amongst others.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/165340.html

group of European scientists say new research shows that the sun is the primary driver of climate change, not man-made activities.

The research, conducted by scientists at Geneva-based CERN, one of the world's leading physics labs, and published in Nature magazine this week, stems from the construction of a chamber, called the CLOUD Project, which recreated the earth's atmosphere, the Telegraph newspaper reported.

Scientists were able to demonstrate that cosmic rays can form molecules that then grow seed clouds inside the atmosphere.

"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 paper reported, summarizing the research.

Director General of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, downplayed the results, however, in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," he said. "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."

The CLOUD experiment builds upon earlier research conducted by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds, The Register reported.

[Ludwig]

So, "the sun determines the temperature of the earth." No shit, Sherlock.

Sounds to me like CC-denialist spin on a non-story.

[clv101]

It's a pretty bad idea to derive your understanding of science from "Newsroom America". I've just read the Nature paper and that article is hopeless.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/165340.html

group of European scientists say new research shows that the sun is the primary driver of climate change, not man-made activities.

Nowhere in the paper do they even hint at such a suggestion, this certainly isn't what their new research has shown.

Scientists were able to demonstrate that cosmic rays can form molecules that then grow seed clouds inside the atmosphere.

No, what was shown was that freshly nucleated particles can be generated. These remained FAR to small to seed clouds and what fraction do eventually grow larger enough is an open question, they didn't study this.

"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 paper reported, summarizing the research.

The newspaper might have reported that, but the scientific publication didn't say that.

Okay, I've now read the Telegraph article that the Newsroom America refer to. It's an blog by James Delingpole! Surely you know this guy's form?

This is a really sad state of affairs, scientists write up their research, give interviews (where lead author Jasper Kirkby said "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step,") and idiots like Delingpole (not a scientist at all) write complete rubbish in the popular press, from where it gets picked up and spun around the web.

How does Delingpole get away with reporting a completely different conclusion than the lead author of the science Delingpole is supposedly covering?

[clv101]

This online media circus was started by Delingpole's blog in the Telegraph. Maybe a little background would be useful. He describes himself as an "interpreter of interpretations", saying "it's not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers". Here's an interview with him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wmuhKzYp4s

This is not a man who you should be listening to when it comes to scientific publications. Read the papers themselves, if you don't have the required access then read the associated press releases and interviews with the scientists involved. Don't read Delingpole!

[JavaScriptDonkey]

So, "the sun determines the temperature of the earth." No shit, Sherlock.

Sounds to me like CC-denialist spin on a non-story.

Yeah that makes sense. The world's premier physics laboratory allowed a non-experiment carried out by non-Phds with non-money in order to investigate a non-story.

All the experimenters have ever claimed is that this process can account for a part of known climate changes and all the experiment sought to investigate was the process. The physics is solid, measurable and wilfully happy to provide predictive tests for the theory. Bluntly: we shall have to wait and see.

Still, I've no doubt reactions such as yours are the reason why CERN are playing a very straight bat on this. Emotions run far too high when people are confronted with the possibility that their declared certitudes might be less than perfect.

[Lord Beria3]

So, "the sun determines the temperature of the earth." No shit, Sherlock.

Sounds to me like CC-denialist spin on a non-story.

Yeah that makes sense. The world's premier physics laboratory allowed a non-experiment carried out by non-Phds with non-money in order to investigate a non-story.

All the experimenters have ever claimed is that this process can account for a part of known climate changes and all the experiment sought to investigate was the process. The physics is solid, measurable and wilfully happy to provide predictive tests for the theory. Bluntly: we shall have to wait and see.

Still, I've no doubt reactions such as yours are the reason why CERN are playing a very straight bat on this. Emotions run far too high when people are confronted with the possibility that their declared certitudes might be less than perfect.

+1

When I have mentioned before that the sun is a important factor (along with humanity) in global warming, I have been accused a denier.

[Ludwig]

Still, I've no doubt reactions such as yours are the reason why CERN are playing a very straight bat on this. Emotions run far too high when people are confronted with the possibility that their declared certitudes might be less than perfect.

I didn't read any further than LB's post. I don't know what the original work revealed, but I can spot vague and ambiguous hack writing when I see it, that appears to say something revolutionary while it says nothing of importance.

So "the sun is the primary driver of climate change"? Of course it bloody is, if there were no sun there'd be no climate. Over the history of the earth, of course the sun has had a bigger impact on climate than human CO2 emissions, but then it's had hundreds of millions of years longer to make that impact in.

None of this says that MMGW isn't happening or that it mightn't tip us into runaway climate change that makes the earth all but uninhabitable.

So what exactly is the story here?

[snow hope]

None of this says that MMGW isn't happening or that it mightn't tip us into runaway climate change that makes the earth all but uninhabitable.

So what exactly is the story here?

The 'story' is complex, but the IPCC, state that mankind is 90% responsible for the majority of climate change over the last hundred odd years. There is an increasing amount of people (scientists and non-scientists) who are finding this very hard to accept!

Any chance that the usual protaganists could stop using the "denial" word in climate change threads? You know why you use it and to be honest it doesn't show you in a good light. Some people find it offensive.

[clv101]

The 'story' is complex, but the IPCC, state that mankind is 90% responsible for the majority of climate change over the last hundred odd years. There is an increasing amount of people (scientists and non-scientists) who are finding this very hard to accept!

They say based on the literature, it's very likely (90%) that mankind is responsible. That's a little different to what you wrote.

As for people finding this hard to accept, sure. But, based on their latest publication, the good folk at CERN aren't amongst them. The issue here, is the ridiculous miss-reporting by Delingpole.

[Ludwig]

Any chance that the usual protaganists could stop using the "denial" word in climate change threads? You know why you use it and to be honest it doesn't show you in a good light. Some people find it offensive.

I think it's an acceptable term if the user wants to imply an element of irrationality or disingenuousness in the opinion being discussed. I'm sure the latter doesn't apply to you Snow, but I don't see how you can persist in denying the evidence for MMGW on rational grounds.

I keep an open mind on everything, but the only arguments I hear against MMGW are "It's done nothing but rain this summer" and glib semantic tricks like "the sun is mostly responsible for the earth's climate".

Conversely, I've never heard any alternative explanation as to why the summer ice sheet is nearly gone and the vast majority of the world's glaciers are retreating. Of course, the pictures may all be faked and part of a conspiracy... but I doubt it. The climate change deniers simply avoid addressing these points and concentrate instead on a restricted set of confusing and well-rehearsed statistical arguments.

[biffvernon]

The deniers need to be reminded that the oft quoted figure of 90% in that IPCC report is there because the Chinese and Saudi Arabian political delegations refused to accept the 95% figure that the scientists had written in the draft. 95% is as close to certainty that scientists ever get in these sort of situations.

To deny the overall phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming is, well, really, there's no better word than 'denial'.

If you want to debate just how quickly sea level will rise in particular locations, of how rainfall patterns will shift of whether the frequency of GOM Hurricanes will increase or decrease or, or... there's plenty of science still to be done.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

The deniers need to be reminded that the oft quoted figure of 90% in that IPCC report is there because the Chinese and Saudi Arabian political delegations refused to accept the 95% figure that the scientists had written in the draft. 95% is as close to certainty that scientists ever get in these sort of situations.

To deny the overall phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming is, well, really, there's no better word than 'denial'.

Climate change is undeniable.
The impact of human activity on the atmosphere is undeniable.
The impact of changes in the Sun on our climate are also undeniable.
The impact of human activity on life in the oceans and the knock on effect to the atmosphere is also undeniable.
That global temperature has been on an upward trend but slipped last year is also undeniable.

There are lots of undeniable nodes to this net and yet no one can be sure of the correct relative weights.

I worry that if we concentrate solely on evil CO2 emissions then not only will we be wrong but we might miss something very important along the way.

Scepticism is good as it ensures good science.

[Ludwig]

The deniers need to be reminded that the oft quoted figure of 90% in that IPCC report is there because the Chinese and Saudi Arabian political delegations refused to accept the 95% figure that the scientists had written in the draft. 95% is as close to certainty that scientists ever get in these sort of situations.

To deny the overall phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming is, well, really, there's no better word than 'denial'.

Climate change is undeniable.
The impact of human activity on the atmosphere is undeniable.
The impact of changes in the Sun on our climate are also undeniable.
The impact of human activity on life in the oceans and the knock on effect to the atmosphere is also undeniable.
That global temperature has been on an upward trend but slipped last year is also undeniable.

There are lots of undeniable nodes to this net and yet no one can be sure of the correct relative weights.

I worry that if we concentrate solely on evil CO2 emissions then not only will we be wrong but we might miss something very important along the way.


Scepticism is good as it ensures good science.

Too many people think scepticism means a knee-jerk rejection of anything for which there is no absolute proof. This kind of scepticism ensures no science at all.

Scepticism means considering counter-arguments, but it doesn't mean swallowing counter-arguments.

The question "What is most responsible for climate change?" is a red herring. It's vague enough that you could answer "the sun" or "volcanism" or "meteorite impacts" and be right, depending on your chosen frame of reference and time scale.

The only important question is whether man-made increases in atmospheric CO2 are pushing us to a climatic tipping point.

"Let's not jump to conclusions because we might be missing something" can be applied to any scientific field. Yet somehow people only start using this argument regarding evidence that they don't like the look of.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

"Let's not jump to conclusions because we might be missing something" can be applied to any scientific field. Yet somehow people only start using this argument regarding evidence that they don't like the look of.

But that's the problem - linking CO2 exclusively to CC is jumping to conclusions. There is s process there but there is also significant doubt as to its exclusivity. The standard Green line is 'CO2 is THE cause of all evil so don't bother looking for anything else'.

What if they are wrong? What if CO2 is just a small part of the reason for climatic change? What if the underlying trend is completely outside of our control?

That doesn't automatically give us carte blanche to carry on burning FF. It might even make action on CO2 production even more critical.

Generally I don't take much notice of an alleged scientific consensus. There have been many over the centuries and generally it only takes one researcher to overturn it with new data.

[snow hope]

The 'story' is complex, but the IPCC, state that mankind is 90% responsible for the majority of climate change over the last hundred odd years. There is an increasing amount of people (scientists and non-scientists) who are finding this very hard to accept!

They say based on the literature, it's very likely (90%) that mankind is responsible. That's a little different to what you wrote.

Not much.

The issue here, is the ridiculous miss-reporting by Delingpole.

On that issue, I agree with you. Poor jounalism.....