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
I hear rumbling.
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.
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’.
Ah, but how did the water get into the atmosphere in the first place?
AGW of course
/sarc.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
and of course NewScientist argues that the CLOUD results are irrelevant. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-effect-on-the-climate.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
@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.
The fact that Kirby is a lousy politician makes me more inclined to believe he’s a good Scientist.
I’m more inclined to think it was the acid.
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.
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.
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)
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!