new global warming science

[Merckx index]

New studies suggest that SOME global warming MAY result from changes in the sun's magnetic field:

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth…

To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "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," he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

Some, not surprisingly, are taking this further:

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun -- not humans

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.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/news_000252_Global_warming_caused_by_sun.html#ixzz1WSn5pi5L

Nigel Calder, former editor of The New Scientist and long-time skeptic, weighs in here:

http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news...rms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change.html

A graph they'd prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011

Well, tucked away in this figure legend is the phrase "that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds". As I understand the research, this has not yet been shown yet (though Calder cites other studies that he claims show a correlation between cosmic ray activity and cloud formation). Like other skeptics, Calder also has moaned for years that mainstream scientific journals like Nature suppress the evidence against man-made global warming. So he has to do an about-face here.

Calder concludes with this rant:

CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?

For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.

And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.

And another skeptic, Lawrence Solomon, accuses even Nature of trying to cover up the results:

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/

Again, this graph (you can view it in the Calder link above) shows that cosmic rays promote "clusters" of molecules that might be able to seed cloud formation. I'm no expert in this field, but as I understand the science, this study does not show that these clusters inevitably do result in cloud formation.

Stay tuned.

 

[hrotha]

Very interesting link (the first one), and a real shame this debate has become political rather than scientific.

 

[Bala Verde]

I read that the other day in the Economist I think. Very interesting topic:

For the Economist's article, see here:

The Economist's account I don't know if it's an accurate 'translation' of the original scientific article, but I thought I add it to the thread anyway.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Too bad the rightwing nutjobs do not accept science. This could have helped them out in their battle against the global warming conspiracy.

 

[cromagnon]

It's funny how corporate-run governments (never thought I'd hear myself say that, but that's what it's come to. I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would make of that LOL he'd organise an armed rebellion probably), they deny climate change is occurring then conveniently ACCEPT it's occurring on the proviso that it's not caused by the relentless pursuit of short-term profit at any cost whatsoever.

We plunder and burn like there's no tomorrow (then get high-and-mighty when third world countries attempt the same "development" and "growth" strategies).

In the end whatever damage we cause will not be felt by the wealthy who have the resources to avoid pretty much anything by simply moving: therefore nothing will done and our great grandchildren will think the world they live in is perfectly normal (mostly because inconvenient takes on history will be marginalised).

The irony is should my grim picture be avoided due to some sort of movement among regular people, whatever success that movement achieves will be sabotaged by pride, arrogance and pursuit of power. Stupid humans, let them destroy themselves.

 

[Ferminal]

Very interesting link (the first one), and a real shame this debate has become political rather than scientific.

It's crazy, any new development of our understanding of climate must instantly be used and twisted to support whatever one's stance on AGW is.

The second quote is laughable, where in the IPCC reports does it say that humans are the "dominant controller of climate on Earth"?

 

[oldborn]

Do you really beleive that 50 or so years, few chimneys and Mc Donalds can destroy zillion years old earth climate?

Milanković cycles maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
I am just saying.

 

[Ferminal]

How do you "destroy" a climate?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I've never doubted it existed, though for some strange reason this still gets debated in US politics. And I assumed that human activity and pollution had at least something to do with it. But I ask the same question as before. What can, or should we do about it? And what effect will actions we take have, especially as opposed to what we are doing now?

Everyone wants to talk about the problem, but hardly anyone wants to talk about solutions.

 

[oldborn]

How do you "destroy" a climate?

Semantics for sure Dude, maybe harm, change words would be appropriate.

 

[bicing]

Check out this blog posting, it is from a really intelligent scientist who takes people through the history of climate science in an unbiased and easy to understand way.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html

The cosmic raps thing has been around before. It is important to note the beginning quote from Mercyx Index - "[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step".

"While their results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanism by which GCRs might induce cloud nucleation, they in no way demonstrate that GCRs do significantly promote cloud formation in the real world, let alone support the myth that GCRs drive significant climatic change."

And check out this posting too if you know more about science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...rncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

"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. "

They were correct about this, as Mercyx Index's post showed in the various responses.

 

[Ferminal]

Semantics for sure Dude, maybe harm, change words would be appropriate.

The climate is a dynamic system influenced by a wide range of factors, the idea that any one of them is solely responsible or is not at all responsible for variations in climate is silly. You can't just pick and choose a few of these factors whilst ignoring the rest. "Destroy" or "Harm" are not applicable if all you are concerned about is climate science, with such adjectives you drift into the messy area of impacts i.e. Working Group II.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I've never doubted it existed, though for some strange reason this still gets debated in US politics. And I assumed that human activity and pollution had at least something to do with it. But I ask the same question as before. What can, or should we do about it? And what effect will actions we take have, especially as opposed to what we are doing now?

Everyone wants to talk about the problem, but hardly anyone wants to talk about solutions.

This is a really interesting topic, and hats off to those who came up with the theory or idea about how earth's climate might be affected by extraterrestrial sources. Half the battle in finding solutions is simply to understand the phenomena or the cause and effect. In the end, we may not be able to do much about it, but you never know until it is really understood.

 

[Arnout]

It's crazy, any new development of our understanding of climate must instantly be used and twisted to support whatever one's stance on AGW is.

The second quote is laughable, where in the IPCC reports does it say that humans are the "dominant controller of climate on Earth"?

True this.

Some years ago I was convinced of human influence in climate change (global warming back then) and actively writing about it.

But in recent years I am not so sure anymore. I've read reports about how temperatures are measured (on top of big buildings for example, exactly where air conditioning units started to appear) and in general it was not good.

But then there is something changing. I think nobody is denying climate change. But I am not convinced that human beings play a primary role in this (we tend to overestimate ourselves big time). I just don't see the evidence. Climate has changed since the beginning of times. Just look at the Bonneville salt flats for example. That was a big lake once, now its a salt flat. This happened before we started burning fossil fuels for our pleasure.

All in all, I think we might play a part in it, but only a part. Is that relevant for what we have to do?

I don't really think so. In the whole ecomentalist / climate change discussion, one thing is often forgotten and that is the local environment. In the end, fossil fuels produce smog, unhealthy air and all that and its reasonable to look for an alternative. There are more reasons, the primary being that we will run out of it once. Oil is also unevenly distributed across the earth, meaning politics and wars are influenced by it. All not favourable.

So I think we should invest in other energy sources, but not primarily because of climate change.

 

[TRDean]

True this.

Some years ago I was convinced of human influence in climate change (global warming back then) and actively writing about it.

But in recent years I am not so sure anymore. I've read reports about how temperatures are measured (on top of big buildings for example, exactly where air conditioning units started to appear) and in general it was not good.

But then there is something changing. I think nobody is denying climate change. But I am not convinced that human beings play a primary role in this (we tend to overestimate ourselves big time). I just don't see the evidence. Climate has changed since the beginning of times. Just look at the Bonneville salt flats for example. That was a big lake once, now its a salt flat. This happened before we started burning fossil fuels for our pleasure.

All in all, I think we might play a part in it, but only a part. Is that relevant for what we have to do?

I don't really think so. In the whole ecomentalist / climate change discussion, one thing is often forgotten and that is the local environment. In the end, fossil fuels produce smog, unhealthy air and all that and its reasonable to look for an alternative. There are more reasons, the primary being that we will run out of it once. Oil is also unevenly distributed across the earth, meaning politics and wars are influenced by it. All not favourable.

So I think we should invest in other energy sources, but not primarily because of climate change.

Very well said. A question I always have is what climate are humans searching for? It appears that we want the climate as it is now...which is best for us. But with such a dynamic system, change is gonna happen..and maybe when all is said and done the earths climate will be better suited for another life form. Is this bad? Is this good? Who knows...but change is going to happen and humans are not going to stop it.

Lastly, I have always had a problem with AGW. Not in the sense that humans may be the cause...but where I live (and I won't give that away) there is more stinkin trash and junk along the road, in the woods, in the waterways...that I have a hard time believing that people who crap in their own backyards would actually give a hoot about global climate change. If you can't even keep your own neighborhood clean...

 

[Arnout]

What I find the most annoying about the politification of the whole climate change discussion is that people who buy a car like a Toyota Prius say they are durable and good for environment and all that.

The Toyota Prius is not energy safe because of its tiny hybrid engine. It is because of its shape and because of the redicilous Eco tires. I regurlarly drive one for my work and in rain, I don't feel safe in it because of the poor tires.

Anyway, the batteries in those Toyota Prius are difficult to find on the earth. So difficult in fact, that if you want to rebuild all of todays cars on the earth with a battery engine, you run out of Lithium before you are finished building.

This is the problem with making this kind of thing politics. Not the most favourable solutions are chosen, but the solutions that are politically most favourable.

 

[cromagnon]

In the end, we may not be able to do much about it

I hope you mean as individuals, not as a species.

Anyone who doubts human industry as overwhelmingly responsible for recent and continuing climate change is officially a wacko (that probably sold their stuff in preparation for the recent Rapture).

 

[Merckx index]

I read that the other day in the Economist I think. Very interesting topic:

For the Economist's article, see here:

The Economist's account I don't know if it's an accurate 'translation' of the original scientific article, but I thought I add it to the thread anyway.

Very well-balanced summary of the study. I recommend it.

Check out this blog posting, it is from a really intelligent scientist who takes people through the history of climate science in an unbiased and easy to understand way.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html

And check out this posting too if you know more about science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...rncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

Thanks for the links, the Real Climate blog is especially illuminating. He makes two points that really stick out for me:

1) there is no historical correlation between cosmic ray activity and planet temperatures; he shows a graph indicating they fluctuate in approximately ten year cycles, whereas global warming data do not show such fluctuations in the earth’s temperatures.
2) The actual fluctuations in cosmic ray activity historically only amount to 10-20%. Based on the CERN studies, that is not enough to account for very large changes in cluster formation leading to cloud seeding.

In addition, a point mentioned by almost everyone is that the largest changes were only seen at very cool temperatures, corresponding to very high elevations. The cloud seeding hypothesis is based on clouds at lower levels, and the experiments mimicked the air concentration of various substances at these levels, not the upper levels.

There is a much more obvious point I think overlooked by the skeptics here. Any cloud formation depends on the presence of certain pollutants, like SO2 and ammonia—this was one of the major findings of the CERN study--so even if this study suggested that global warming were not all the result of carbon dioxide, pollution still plays a major role. It’s ironic, really. The skeptics are cheering about the possibility that some global warming might be due to the sun’s effect on cosmic rays, but CRs only have this effect to the extent that pollutants exist as the basis of the nucleation process. So the skeptics are whole-heartedly embracing the assumption that man-made pollution is capable of altering temperatures on earth by such a large degree. That contrary to what Solomon was claiming, human activity DOES drive significant climate change. Not to mention, of course, that they are also accepting that global warming is a real phenomenon.

In the end, fossil fuels produce smog, unhealthy air and all that and its reasonable to look for an alternative. There are more reasons, the primary being that we will run out of it once. Oil is also unevenly distributed across the earth, meaning politics and wars are influenced by it. All not favourable.

Of course. I find it a little sad that it takes the prospect of global warming to convince many people that major changes are needed in our energy policy. Just turn on a car's engine and look at the sh!t that comes out of the back end. Surely we can do better than this?

 

[ElChingon]

I think we've all heard/read all the theories and rumors. I know a guy who was taking the measurements in the South Pole and the very inability to take consistent measurements due to bad weather and the pressure from the funding grant to produce results, well the guy quit because he knew any published results would be very bad. Yes, those results were still published and taken as hard facts, yet some of us knew they were BS. Due to the names on the paper well it got published. Don't believe all the hype unless you know it to be fact!

I've also meet my share of Yahoo's (well to me) with their theories that have not been published or at least not in the major media. Everything from how space launch/landings affect the ozone hole due to exit/re-entry into it to excessive cow emissions and everything in between. All the theories still lack hard evidence and data, most provide spotty data and weak evidence other than a theory of how it could be there. The fact is no one knows if the ozone hole(s) have always existed, who took measurements 50 years ago? Then there's the whole cyclical universe we live in, why do comets come around every X years? If they're going to crash into something why is it Earth and not some random comet or other planet/star? Maybe they made the hole?

Anyway, lets not get too over excited about another theory, we have as many theories as a....

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I hope you mean as individuals, not as a species.

Anyone who doubts human industry as overwhelmingly responsible for recent and continuing climate change is officially a wacko (that probably sold their stuff in preparation for the recent Rapture).

I meant as either individuals or species. But I left the door open for possible intervention depending on what research reveals by also saying originally, "(In the end, we may not be able to do much about it,) but you never know until it (the cause and effect) is really understood".

We could probably have an entire thread just on interventions and resulting effects/consequences. That brings to mind the recently released movie "Rise of the Planet Apes", about how mankinds actions could have potentially lethal effects.

 

[Arnout]

I hope you mean as individuals, not as a species.

Anyone who doubts human industry as overwhelmingly responsible for recent and continuing climate change is officially a wacko (that probably sold their stuff in preparation for the recent Rapture).

Good argumentation, you convinced me there.