Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

[flacaltenn]

I dunno if anyone bothered to notice that the claims made in the OP are just wrong. The Nature Letter the article refers to makes no such claims about the Sun being mostly responsible for the warming trend.

The warming trend began over 14,000 years ago. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not responsible either.

Hello.

The Nature Letter the article refers to makes no such claims about the Sun being mostly responsible for the warming trend.

Thread closed

Of course not OPPYDoo. The Nature Letter also didn't print the one graph that showed any of the test results in their Letter Section.. It was PURPOSELY relegated to an obscure index on their website. In fact -- what appears in the Nature article would be subject not only to political pressures at CERN -- but also the editorial judgement of the Nature staff wouldn't it?

My take on the results is to leave open a POSSIBILITY that cosmic radiation FROM THE SUN being a key factor in cloud formation. Cloud formation is MANY MANY times more important than CO2 in determining surface warming trends. THUS --- all this shows so far is THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS that solar magnetics or instabilities COULD have a larger role in temperature change than AGW.

Happy now??

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course not OPPYDoo. The Nature Letter also didn't print the one graph that showed any of the test results in their Letter Section..

I'm looking at the letter now and there's a couple of graphs showing test results

It was PURPOSELY relegated to an obscure index on their website. In fact -- what appears in the Nature article would be subject not only to political pressures at CERN -- but also the editorial judgement of the Nature staff wouldn't it?

Its mostly subject to peer review - a process I'm sure you find frightening.

My take on the results is to leave open a POSSIBILITY that cosmic radiation FROM THE SUN being a key factor in cloud formation. Cloud formation is MANY MANY times more important than CO2 in determining surface warming trends. THUS --- all this shows so far is THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS that solar magnetics or instabilities COULD have a larger role in temperature change than AGW.

Happy now??

Its possible that monkeys will fly out your ass, too. I don't really see what your intuitive gut feelings based on absolutely nothing should count for anything.

 

[wirebender]

No, the Milankovic Cycles were. And by them, we should be starting a long slide downhill toward another ice age in about 20,000 years. Not experiancing the rapid warming that we are today.

You state that as if it were indisputable fact rocks. It isn't. It is just one hypothesis among many. If you believe it is indisputable fact, then lets see the indisputable proof. You guys seem to have a hard time distinguishing the real from the unreal. You take hypothesis as fact and you accept computer output as observed data. Why not try reality sometime, even if it isn't exactly what you want it to be?

 

[daveman]

Thread closed

You all stop so Oopsie can settle down!

 

[daveman]

Of course not OPPYDoo. The Nature Letter also didn't print the one graph that showed any of the test results in their Letter Section..

I'm looking at the letter now and there's a couple of graphs showing test results

It was PURPOSELY relegated to an obscure index on their website. In fact -- what appears in the Nature article would be subject not only to political pressures at CERN -- but also the editorial judgement of the Nature staff wouldn't it?

Its mostly subject to peer review - a process I'm sure you find frightening.

My take on the results is to leave open a POSSIBILITY that cosmic radiation FROM THE SUN being a key factor in cloud formation. Cloud formation is MANY MANY times more important than CO2 in determining surface warming trends. THUS --- all this shows so far is THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS that solar magnetics or instabilities COULD have a larger role in temperature change than AGW.

Happy now??

Its possible that monkeys will fly out your ass, too. I don't really see what your intuitive gut feelings based on absolutely nothing should count for anything.

But you accept it from AGW cultists, who FEEL mankind is killing the planet.

 

[theliq]

Well Dave I have to AGREE with your last post..........stevenbut I'm still keeping an eye on those pictures of yours,and this one is border-line,be careful Dave

Degreed physicists can also be AGW skeptics. Do you believe them?

Of course not. Your sole criteria for judging the validity of anyone's claims is, "Do they agree with me?"

Well, I know of a couple of them. Of course, they also appeared before Congress to state that tobacco was harmless.

I said "physicists", not "physicians". Moron.

 

[konradv]

Does it really matter ? Eventually the Earth won't exist anyway. Scientists need to concern themselves with space travel or the human species is a goner.

We have to stop concern over the short term to look at something that's in the ultra-ultra- long term? That's as ridiculous as saying we're going to reach the GW tipping point tomorrow.

 

[konradv]

I dunno if anyone bothered to notice that the claims made in the OP are just wrong. The Nature Letter the article refers to makes no such claims about the Sun being mostly responsible for the warming trend.

The warming trend began over 14,000 years ago. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not responsible either.

Doesn't mean there couldn't be a different cause today. After all, what happened to that "New Ice Age" the skeptics/deniers have been telling us is coming? Seems like no one's been talking about that since the 70s. Some, however, keep bringing it up, despite the the fact that it pretty much kicks their argument in the teeth.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Of course not OPPYDoo. The Nature Letter also didn't print the one graph that showed any of the test results in their Letter Section..

I'm looking at the letter now and there's a couple of graphs showing test results


Its mostly subject to peer review - a process I'm sure you find frightening.

My take on the results is to leave open a POSSIBILITY that cosmic radiation FROM THE SUN being a key factor in cloud formation. Cloud formation is MANY MANY times more important than CO2 in determining surface warming trends. THUS --- all this shows so far is THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS that solar magnetics or instabilities COULD have a larger role in temperature change than AGW.

Happy now??

Its possible that monkeys will fly out your ass, too. I don't really see what your intuitive gut feelings based on absolutely nothing should count for anything.

But you accept it from AGW cultists, who FEEL mankind is killing the planet.

No.

 

[wirebender]

Doesn't mean there couldn't be a different cause today. After all, what happened to that "New Ice Age" the skeptics/deniers have been telling us is coming? Seems like no one's been talking about that since the 70s. Some, however, keep bringing it up, despite the the fact that it pretty much kicks their argument in the teeth.

That doesn't even begin to constitute any sort of proof to support your own faith konradv. What, exactly is your point and what proof can you offer up in support of it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.

CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

"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," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.
.
.
.
.

CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.

"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," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "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."

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN - International Business Times

THE FACTS: The scientific consensus on climate change is about as settled as any major scientific issue can be. The opinion expressed in the OP runs counter to the view of an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. The National Academy of Sciences, in an investigation requested by Congress, concluded last year: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."

 

[dilloduck]

Does it really matter ? Eventually the Earth won't exist anyway. Scientists need to concern themselves with space travel or the human species is a goner.

We have to stop concern over the short term to look at something that's in the ultra-ultra- long term? That's as ridiculous as saying we're going to reach the GW tipping point tomorrow.

The concern for the human race is just spin. Spin it differently.

 

[wirebender]

Q: What can a climate scientist bring to the table in a discussion on the climate among physicists?

A: The coffee.

 

[Old Rocks]

Q: What can a climate scientist bring to the table in a discussion on the climate among physicists?

A: The coffee.

Bent, you are a dumb fuck.

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Dr. James E. Hansen

Affiliation: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500


Curriculum Vitae

Download CV (PDF)
Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

The people coming out with the strongest climate statements concerning AGW are physicist. In fact, the Scientific Society that has the most scientists in it publishing articles concerning climate is the American Geophyical Union.

This is their statement concerning AGW;


AGU revises position on climate change

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yep.

That tears it.

Dumping tons of crap into the atmosphere has no effect what so ever.

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

congrats, you finally missed the difference between pollution and climate.

 

[IanC]

AGW is a mirage. a pretty fairytale that by coincidence matched up with conditions in the '90s. but the more data we collect and the more factors we examine, the more anthropoligical causes fade into irrelevance. history will show this era as a time of mass hysteria based on flimsy evidence and illogical conclusions.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

AGW is a mirage. a pretty fairytale that by coincidence matched up with conditions in the '90s. but the more data we collect and the more factors we examine, the more anthropoligical causes fade into irrelevance. history will show this era as a time of mass hysteria based on flimsy evidence and illogical conclusions.

How much data have you collected?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yep.

That tears it.

Dumping tons of crap into the atmosphere has no effect what so ever.

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

congrats, you finally missed the difference between pollution and climate.

If you posted this idiotgram as a means to censor Olf Rocks comprehensive message you have failed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q: What can a climate scientist bring to the table in a discussion on the climate among physicists?

A: The coffee.

Bent, you are a dumb fuck.

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Dr. James E. Hansen

Affiliation: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500


Curriculum Vitae

Download CV (PDF)
Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

The people coming out with the strongest climate statements concerning AGW are physicist. In fact, the Scientific Society that has the most scientists in it publishing articles concerning climate is the American Geophyical Union.

This is their statement concerning AGW;


AGU revises position on climate change

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Thanks for posting a real authority; let the morons continue to echo each other in their denial of science in general and support of the kochroaches and dickcheneys of the dark side.

 

[Iridescence]

Q: What can a climate scientist bring to the table in a discussion on the climate among physicists?

A: The coffee.

Bent, you are a dumb fuck.

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Dr. James E. Hansen

Affiliation: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500


Curriculum Vitae

Download CV (PDF)
Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

The people coming out with the strongest climate statements concerning AGW are physicist. In fact, the Scientific Society that has the most scientists in it publishing articles concerning climate is the American Geophyical Union.

This is their statement concerning AGW;


AGU revises position on climate change

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

*Cringe* OHhhhhhh the irony....