Some reactions to the CLOUD experiment

CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect

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

 

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I hear rumbling.

John Marshall

As usual the BBC has reported this in the AGW context, It’s still CO2. No mention of Svensmark or his research prior to these experiments ar CERN.
I have complained but expect no reply as usual when a complaint is made about some outrageous statement about climate, storms, rising sea levels etc.

Lew Skannen

I can’t believe that the BBC allowed this news to get out. With a bit of luck this might be the sort of story that will appeal to the taste of the popular press. There must be some reporters out there who want to break the big story that actually contradicts the ‘concensus’.

Neil Jones

Ah, but how did the water get into the atmosphere in the first place?
AGW of course
/sarc.

Steve from Rockwood

If Jasper Kirby was a politician I would vote for him. And congratulations to Svensmark!

Ah yes the BBC response is interesting – their lead quote in the analysis is:
“Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? – No” Professor Mike Lockwood Reading University.
Well that’s settled it then I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647

Interesting column by Lawrence Solomon. It would explain why Henrik Svensmark is not listed in as an author in the CERN CLOUD experiment results. Could Svensmark and Kirkby have agreed that his inclusion would be too controversial for the ‘climate’ community? Hard to say, but anyone who has studied Svensmark’s theory of Cosmoclimatology knows that is what was behind the CLOUD experiments. I would have hoped that Kirkby would have been more forceful in his presentation of the results, but I guess that will be up to us outsiders…

charles nelson

flows and bows of angel hair
icecream castles in the air
and feathered canyons everywhere…..
I think Joni ‘really’ understood clouds.

You can tune into YouTube and the DVD (that I got from a video hire shop) ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ one of the special features attached to the main feature (1 hr long) is a report from scientists employed to find out why anchovy and sardine shoals fluctuated some years more than others. The scientist explained it was the amount of rain that was received and poured into the sea as a run off. Clouds are formed by evaporation from the oceans, and when cosmic rays
that are always bombarding the earth from some ancient source like a Super Nova, combine with
water molecules they form more clouds. When there is solar activity flares, storms or sunspots,
these deflect cosmic rays from the planet and cloud cover decreases. Simple physics now CERN
has confirmed previous studies that the global alarmists have conveniently ignored.
Now it makes sense (to some?) 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapour, 4 % is CO2 and 1%
trace gases, like nitrous oxide etc. But over 3% of that CO2 is naturally formed. Clouds do
not only provide rain, snow etc., but they also keep the planet warm and also cold depending on the season. Deserts are hot during the day and temperatures plummet at night. Frost doesn’t form in winter when there is cloud cover.
Of course the BBC will not promote this important climate influence because it is only CO2 that they have invested a large percentage of their superannuation scheme in carbon credits.
At last there is evidence that the AGW is nothing but an figment of the imagination who wish to financially benefit from totally and fraudulently influencing governments to implement carbon taxes and clean energy projects.

I sincerely hope that “mainstream climate science” is not successful in crushing the work of Svensmark and Kirby. This work is the only experimental work in climate science. However, even now we hear from the MSC that this work can go nowhere because they know everything and, in particular, they know that the sun could not have a large influence on Earth’s climate.
I hope that the MSM picks up on the fact that this work is experimental and that the MSC has nothing comparable, no successful experiments at all whether passive or active.

Ken Harvey

I think that skeptics should announce a shortly forthcoming ‘Svensmark Day’, to be celebrated by every downtrodden tax payer around the world. There is a need for the MSM to be dragged into the open, kicking and screaming if need be.

Pascvaks

Give science time and the truth will out. Give politicians and anarchists time and you’ll go broke and end up a slave. Science is never settled, so don’t ever trust anyone who says it is; especially if they were elected, or nominated and confirmed, for the job they’re in now, or their job depends on what these folks say. No doubt in 20-30 years we’ll know a lot more than we do today. Welllllll… the kids will.

Talk of the pot calling the kettle black. CERN must have employed Alastair Campbell to spin their stuff. The warmist media have clealry been pump primed ahead of everyone else to set the agenda with “nothing to see here folks move along”.
They must think the rest of the media are gullible morons if they think they are going to be fooled by such nonsense
As for the staff at CERN … those that kept quiet to avoid “politicising the issue” must be fuming!
As for the BBC … Just look at these:-:
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity. … (but)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. (2008)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
Results from an experiment built to study how clouds form suggests that our knowledge of this subject may need to be revised, Nature journal reports.(now)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14637647
The official line is remains: Sunspots do not affect climate
So how this this one slip under the climate censor?
The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

Well the BBC has committed a large percentage of their superannuation scheme in carbon credits or trading. They better withdrew them now while they still have some value. Talk about the South Sea Bubble of the 18th Century, what about the 21st Century ‘Carbon bubble’.
But its governments who make the decisions on this, and who will be game enough to state the
AGW is a fraud to make some people money by deception.

Don B

Where is the NY Times? I expected the online edition this morning to feature Andy Revkin denying it meant anything at all, but instead there was nothing.

Pete in Cumbria UK

As far as I know/have read and understand, this….(from the BBC page linked to above + my emphasis)
Climate scientists point out that there is evidence to show that the sustained rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years cannot be explained by cosmic ray activity. They also point to a vast body of research pointing to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to be the cause. According to Professor Lockwood, it is very unlikely that variations in cosmic rays have played a significant role in recent warming.
…is just plain wrong and/or a blatant lie, isn’t it?

Shevva

@Theo Goodwin says:
August 25, 2011 at 5:00 am
Don’t worry you cannot crush science you can only suppress it, the truth will always out. Especially science, although it may take decades/centauries.

Jeremy

The fact that Kirby is a lousy politician makes me more inclined to believe he’s a good Scientist.

charles nelson says:
August 25, 2011 at 4:47 am
flows and bows of angel hair
icecream castles in the air
and feathered canyons everywhere…..
I think Joni ‘really’ understood clouds.

I’m more inclined to think it was the acid.

Theo Goodwin

Scottish Sceptic says:
August 25, 2011 at 5:13 am
So how this this one slip under the climate censor?
“The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm
There is that age old problem with lying. If you are going to lie, you must have a lie coordinator who keeps everyone informed about the progress of the lie and keeps everyone on the same page.

Lady Life Grows

Note the last quote. and a sure-thing experiment put on ice because the money-sources wanted particular results.
We don’t KNOW the truth about climate change because there has been so very much of that.
I am personally a scientist. When I look for funding form the US goverment’s National Science Foundation, much of the first several pages mention global warming. It is emphatically and profoundly clear what you have to do to get funding.
Eisenhower warned us about that.

Eric Gisin

Warren Meyer has an article at Forbes explaining the science to the public. Wish the MSM were this good.
Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/

See the various “Cloud Experiment” lectures and videos, by Svensmark, Kirkby,
Calder and others at the Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science website.
Click the name “Axel” above to go there now.
On Video Wall #3
Cosmic Rays and Climate – by Jasper Kirkby (English – CERN Colloquium 2009)
On Video Wall #5
“climate change is due to cosmic rays.” (Jo Haig challenges Nigel Calder – BBC Newsnight)
Kampen om Klimaet – Svensmark (Danske & English with Norsk Commentary & Subtitles)
The Cloud Mystery – Henrik Svensmark (English with Danske Subtitles 2007)
On Video Wall #11
Jasper Kirkby: The CLOUD experiment at CERN – 2011 (English – updated)

sunderlandsteve

From Harrabins article, referring the Prof Giles harrison, Reading university:
He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.
Surely thats what we have been seeing, not a drop in actual temps as there is still the natural warming trend coming out of the LIA, as well as decadal variation to allow for,but a definate drop off in the warming trend in the last 15 years or so. Perhaps some-one should explain to the good prof that he’s actually confirmed Svensmarks theory!

Louise

How is a BBC link from 2008 a reaction to the Cloud experiment that has only just reported?

Louise said:
August 25, 2011 at 11:25 am
> How is a BBC link from 2008 a reaction to the Cloud experiment
> that has only just reported?
It was not a reaction, it was a “preaction” 😉

James Hall

I thought the response in skepticalscience was illuminating. I do not at all ‘get’ how this very theoretical explanation of GW can be considered better than the very convincing manmade c02 explanation!

James;
missing ‘sarc’ there?
Here’s a dupe of my comment on the Forbes page:

Comparing the CLOUD results to CO2 lab studies is like matching a Diesel locomotive to a toy Choo-Choo.
Speaking of Pachauri, the IPCC has no interest in actual scientific validation/falsification testing. The gravy train is roaring along, the money spigots are controlled by all the approved people, why mess with success?

@James Hall
You wrote : “very convincing manmade c02 explanation!”
Either this is tongue in cheek, or you really do need to get informed.
Firstly, it is CO2 & not c02. The expression is a chemical formula.
Cabon Di-Oxide, meaning one atom of Carbon joined onto Two
atoms of Oxygen. The expression does not mean “carbon atom #02”,
or whatever your expression might signify.
This is NOT an esoteric debate over some fine points of science,
even though thats how it mean seem to you, if you stumbled on
the raging controversy in these pages. Yes there are debates, and
even arguments on fine points and nuances. There are also claims
of downright fraud and disinformation. Some explanations are pitched
at an easier to understand level.
Please do take the time to watch the two videos…….
The View from Galileo’s Window – the Sun, the CO2 Monster, and Earth’s Climate.
by Solar Physicist, Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard.
and ……
Real Facts about Climate Change
by Prof. R. Lindzen of M.I.T.
They can be found on Video Wall #1
at the website linked to the name “Axel” above.
Please watch those videos and tell your friends.
Thank You 🙂

The lack of positive reaction outside the immediate ‘climosphere’ is puzzling. Normally UK Telegraph, Fox News, and blogs like NRO and EUReferendum would take positive note of such a huge development. Are they participating in the blackout, or have they just missed the significance?

Cam (Melbourne, Australia)

The timing couldn’t be worse……With Hurricane Irene bearing down on New York, you know what will dominate the climate change arena for the next few weeks don’t you? A perfect distraction for the warmists – they’ll stick with the religious hubris whilst the real science (CERN/CLOUD) will be ignored.
What century are we living in??!

For your Scandinavian readers: A Norwegian article / En norsk artikkel:
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2011/august/296200

AusieDan

As I have commented elsewhere, many commentators seem to have forgotten or just ignored, that these results just announced from CERN are not the end result of the research, but just the initial findings.
CLOUD is a multi year long experiment.
When completed, we will have an unbroken line from the incoming cosmic rays to the rain that is falling mainly on the Spanish plain (and elsewhere as well, for the pedantic).

rbateman

What happens when the Solar Wind goes limp for too long?
i.e. – does a wall of Cosmic Rays come crashing into Earth?

Oedtuk

Polistra said
“The lack of positive reaction outside the immediate ‘climosphere’ is puzzling. Normally UK Telegraph, Fox News, and blogs like NRO and EUReferendum would take positive note of such a huge development. Are they participating in the blackout, or have they just missed the significance?”
I cannot speak for Fox News etc. but neither the Online nor Print editions of today’s UK Telegraph
carry theCERN story. Its walltowall coverage of Libya plus yesterday’s release of the annual national schools examination results. Also it is the start of the Bank Holiday week end. However the 0nline pm edition just might have something

Alan the Brit

You must remember Prof Mike Lockwood is the one who said a couple of years ago that the quiet Sun would, if significant, show cooling, & it hasn’t happened. He just forgot to look at all four Global temperature metrics which, as Prof Jones testifies to, shows no significanat warming since 1995, & the last 10 years have flatlined pretty much. Besides I look upon it like switching your central heating on because you’re cold, but you don’t get warm straight away, it takes around an hour to reallt start feeling cozy, the Sun does the same trickonly on a rathr bigger scale, & vice-versa! Don’t forget William Herschell & his corn price predictions he was so good at just by counting Sunspots!

Ian L. McQueen

I tuned in at the very end of the program “One Planet” on BBC World Service this morning and heard that they had interviewed Prof. Kirkby about CLOUD. I wish I could hear what was said!!
IanM

DR

Alan the Brit,
It was Mike Lockwood that went to the press just prior to a major U.N. meeting and announced the final “nail in the coffin” for solar/climate connections. Remember? Of course it was just coincidence he made that proclamation on that particular day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1
The Royal Society is not political, no not at all……and as we all know when things stopped working out so well for the snow-will-be-a-thing-of-the-past solar deniers, Lockwood had an epiphany and suddenly the sun does affect climate, but only in northern Europe. Yes, we’re so blessed to have such honest, objective and apolitical scientists as Mike Lockwood who never make knee jerk statements.
Enter Nir Shaviv, but remember, only CO2 is qualified to allow for lag effects; the ubiquitous heat “in the pipeline” scientists (Hansen, Trenberth et al) know will come back to haunt us any decade now..
http://landshape.org/enm/using-the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter-to-quantify-the-solar-radiative-forcing-the-background/
No OHC increase in the upper 700m since 2003….well the heat must be sinking to the bottom undetected, or somewhere.
Lack of surface warming for the past decade….blame the Chinese, except that Hansen already proclaimed it was coal that would surely cause the earth to burn up. Anyway, blame something.
No tropical tropospheric “hot spot”……nobody ever said that was a “fingerprint” of AGW, well except for IPCC, Santer 05 and countless others. 400% error in climate models is indicative of erroneous observational data, obviously. But hey, this is climate “science” and unfalsifiable hypotheses are the latest tools available so use them often.
Hydrological modeling……
Ocean currents……
Antarctic warming…
Katrina was a sure signal for AGW overwhelming natural variation and was only the beginning of what surely would be even worse hurricane disasters, just ask Trenberth. Oh and that Chris Landsea? How did such a denier get access to IPCC? When hurricanes didn’t make landfall for over 1000 days, the longest stretch since the 1860’s, that too is confirmation of AGW. But now Irene will most assuredly renew our confidence in the unequivocal truth that man caused it.
Am I missing some? There are so many to keep track of. Isn’t it great though that no matter what happens, it is consistent with AGW?

DCA

Jeff Alberts says:
August 25, 2011 at 7:55 am
charles nelson says:
August 25, 2011 at 4:47 am
flows and bows of angel hair
icecream castles in the air
and feathered canyons everywhere…..

I think Joni ‘really’ understood clouds.
I’m more inclined to think it was the acid.
+++++++++++++++
Thanks for being so astute. I had a good laugh. 🙂

barry

The people at CERN do real science, and blog ‘scientists’ interpret it in curious ways. If the tentative results in the study are too difficult to understand, CERN has thoughtfully provided a press briefing that speaks directly to what their results mean regarding climate change.

This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

Peter Stone

“[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.”
— Jasper Kirkby, Lead Author on the CLOUD publication in “Nature”.

Richard S Courtney

Peter Stone:
Your quote from Jasper Kirkby is a good ‘holding action’ but no more than that.
Advocates of the AGW-hypothesis have proclaimed a false certainty about cause of the recent global warming, and the CLOUD experiment demonstrates the falseness of the proclaimed certainty in a manner the public and politicians can understand.
And, importantly, the CLOUD experiment demonstrates that nothing should be done in response to the AGW-scare at least until completion of the series of experiments at CERNE.
The following comments explain the above facts.
The advocates of the AGW-hypothesis have asserted the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ by proclaiming;
“Of course anthropogenic emissions must have caused the recent warming; what else could have caused it?”
The proper answer to that question is,
“Nobody knows the true cause of the recent warming which is probably the same natural cause as previous similar warmings”,
but that answer has always been met with a storm of abuse.
Now the answer can be
“Nobody knows the true cause of the recent warming which is probably the same natural cause as previous similar warmings and is likely to be changes in cloud cover as suggested by Svensmark and supported by empirical evidence”.
Also, advocates of the AGW-hypothesis have proclaimed the laboratory studies which show the radiative properties of greenhouse gases (GHG) as though those properties were evidence that changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration must induce global temperature change.
Now there are laboratory studies which show variations in GCR flux have cloud nucleation effects that are at least as likely to affect global temperature as variations in atmospheric GHG concentrations.
As you suggest, the implications of the CLOUD experiment are yet to be determined. And the completion of the studies at CERNE may prove or disprove the Svensmark Hypothesis.
If the completion of the CERNE studies prove Svensmark is right then the AGW-hypothesis is proved wrong (either in part or in whole) so there is no reason for harmful economic actions based on the AGW-hypothesis. In the interim, the Precautionary Principle says the harmful economic actions should not be adopted unless an until the CERNE studies prove Svensmark is wrong.
Richard

peter stone

Richard,
I just posted what the lead author said about his own paper: that the paper “actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate”. I got the impression a lot of people jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions that this was a seminal paper that somehow debunked human-induce climate change. Hoping that this will debunk the state of modern climate science is fine, but hope is not part of the scientific method.
Kirby is doing legitimate, peer-reviewed science, and publishing in reputable and prestigious international science journals. So that’s cool; I prefer that to blog science. But Kirby himself says the findings show us nothing about climate, and it will be five to ten years of additional research to further under what – if any – impact aerosols have on nucleation. The IPCC itself recognized that further knowledge about cloud mechanics is needed, but it is widely thought in the climate science community that cosmic radiation, at best, might have marginal and limited influences on climate. Do you suggest we wait five to ten years, hoping that this research debunks human-induced climate change, before we do anything to reduce our carbon footprint and transition to alternative energy sources? I don’t agree with that. Risk management involves considering the weight of evidence, making reasoned judgments of the magnitude of risk based on the weight of evidence, and acting accordingly. Transitioning to alternative energy also has beneficial national security implications.
As for your assertion that climate scientists have stated with absolute certainty that humans are responsible for climate change, your assertion does not comport with the facts. The science organizations of the world have said no such thing. Science is probabilistic; it doesn’t provide 100% bullet proof guarantees. That would be inconsistent with the scientific method. The word’s national science academies, the IPCC, and other reputable science bodies have concluded that the earth is warming, and that it is “very likely” that human activity is the major cause of recent warming.
***********************************************************************************************************
”A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems”. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
-Source: U.S. National Academies of Science, 2011
“Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels……While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”
-Source: U.S. National Academies of Science, 2010

Last week I was asked what the main indicators of recent global warming were showing, so I ggrabbed a few graphs and concluded that not much was warming. Yes, I confess to using a cherry-picked starting date 15 years ago, but then it has not really warmed in that 15 years, has it?
So, here’s an incomplete memory jogger, just material that was recent and easy to access, some from WUWT, thank you, Anthony. It’s for an Australian audience, hence the first few words.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Email%20to%20Tex..docx

bushbunny says:
August 25, 2011 at 4:55 am
Of course the BBC will not promote this important climate influence because it is only CO2 that they have invested a large percentage of their superannuation scheme in carbon credits.

==========================
Is this verifiable, or just speculation?

Richard S Courtney

peter stone:
At August 27, 2011 at 3:56 am you ask me:
“Do you suggest we wait five to ten years, hoping that this research debunks human-induced climate change, before we do anything to reduce our carbon footprint and transition to alternative energy sources?”
Yes, of course I do because I am not stupid.
You admit the AGW-hypothesis is dubious.
There are no available alternative energy sources that could significantly displace fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
Any attempt to “reduce our carbon footprint” would cost $billions with resulting great loss of human life. A wait of five to ten years is nothing when compared to the horrific consequences of the actions which you propose should be implemented now merely in case the AGW-hypothesis tuns out to be right despite everything that says it is wrong; e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, the ‘missing heat’, the missing ‘committed warming’, etc.
Richard

Ian M

When Heuer said, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate”, he made it clear that he recognises that AGW is a political movement. Was he hinting that he, like so many scientists, wants it revealed for the scam it is? He should stand firm, raise his middle digit to those who pressured him, and let the CLOUD scientists speak their mind.

Lots of news articles on this experiment. Here’s another:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results

peter stone

“You admit the AGW-hypothesis is dubious.”
The statements issued by the U.S. National Academies of Science accurately reflect what I think the state of modern climate science is. I trust them to weigh scientific evidence more than I trust blog scientists.
While you have asserted that the global climate science community has jumped to unsubstantiated and unsupported dubious claims, that is exactly what I’ve seen posters do on this website regarding the CLOUD paper. They’ve treated it as some sort of seminal paper debunking human induced climate change. When in fact, the lead author of the paper and the CLOUD press release made it a point to state this paper says nothing about a linkage between cosmic rays and climate.
CLOUD press release:
“This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf
You may continue to hope that research debunks human induced climate change. That’s fine. I remember that Climate Gate was supposed to prove that there was a vast global conspiracy of lying scientists who faked data. Personally, I don’t put much weight on hope, I generally defer to experts and prestigious science organizations in the field. Blog science and Blog opinion is not something I put a lot of weight in.