Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

[Zoom-boing]

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

 

[Sallow]

Yep.

That tears it.

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

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

 

[editec]

I think its a drop dead certainty that the primary cause of heat on earth is the sun.

And it follows that as the suns activity changes (as it does from time to time) that is going to effect the earth's atmosphere.

Of course that does NOT imply that nothing else can effect the atmosphere.

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

The issue for our consideration is not DO THESE THINGS CHANGE CLIMATE? but HOW MUCH DO THERE DIFFERENT PHEMOMENA CHANGE THE CLIMATE?

Looks to me like the experts are not of one mind in regard to that question.

I can live with that uncertainty.

Apparently many of you cannot.

Such is life.

 

[martybegan]

I think its a drop dead certainty that the primary cause of heat on earth is the sun.

And it follows that as the suns activity changes (as it does from time to time) that is going to effect the earth's atmosphere.

Of course that does NOT imply that nothing else can effect the atmosphere.

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

The issue for our consideration is not DO THESE THINGS CHANGE CLIMATE? but HOW MUCH DO THERE DIFFERENT PHEMOMENA CHANGE THE CLIMATE?

Looks to me like the experts are not of one mind in regard to that question.

I can live with that uncertainty.

Apparently many of you cannot.

Such is life.

I can live with the uncertainty, as long as the results from the various opinions are not used as an excuse to massively increase government's involvment in daily life.

The AGW crowd seems to think only massive government regulation and intrusion can save us from AGW.

 

[Trajan]

I think its a drop dead certainty that the primary cause of heat on earth is the sun.

And it follows that as the suns activity changes (as it does from time to time) that is going to effect the earth's atmosphere.

Of course that does NOT imply that nothing else can effect the atmosphere.

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

The issue for our consideration is not DO THESE THINGS CHANGE CLIMATE? but HOW MUCH DO THERE DIFFERENT PHEMOMENA CHANGE THE CLIMATE?

Looks to me like the experts are not of one mind in regard to that question.

I can live with that uncertainty.

Apparently many of you cannot.

Such is life.

agreed. there is a cycle of life, which we learned more of after the 2 billion ( in 1980-90s' dollars) boondoggle, oops, I mean study of 'acid rain' and depletion of ponds lakes etc.

Being a good steward of the environment makes sense to me both aesthetically and naturally, but some folks don't recognize a line between the known, unknown and how to cope rationally with that fact, so they , lets say overcompensate, to be kind.

Folks like Al Gore and Patrick Moore ( founder of Greenpeace) both had their hearts in the right place, however, one became totally unhinged and is in fact hurting his own cause, the other recognized that politics had taken over and excused himself from his own organization recognizing that it had become a 'grind your axe' football.

 

[Old Rocks]

ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change

How Do We Know That Cosmic Rays Aren’t Driving Significant Climatic Change?

In reference to the present anthropogenic climatic changes that we’re driving through alteration of the planetary energy balance notably through greenhouse gas emissions, we can theorize what certain “fingerprints” of enhanced greenhouse warming should look like, and examine observational data to see whether those fingerprints show up. And they do.

Moreover, we can examine the claims made by Svensmark, Shaviv, and others who proclaim GCRs drive climate and see whether or not they hold up. They don’t:

We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).

We can examine the change in GCRs in response to solar variability over recent decades or the course of a solar cycle, and find there is no or little corresponding change in climate (Lockwood 2007, Lockwood 2008, Kulmala 2010).

We can look at alleged correlations between GCRs and climate in the geologic past due to our sun passing through galactic spiral arms, and find that these “correlations” were based on an unrealistic, overly-simplified model of spiral structure and are not valid (Overholt 2009). Standard climatic processes (like CO2) more parsimoniously explained the climatic changes even before taking the flawed spiral model into account (Rahmstorf 2004).

We can examine the specific mechanisms by which Svensmark and others have claimed GCRs influence climate via cloud behavior and show that alleged correlations between GCRs and clouds were incorrectly calculated or insufficiently large, proposed mechanisms (e.g. Forbush decreases) are too short lived, too small in magnitude, or otherwise incapable of altering cloud behavior on a large enough scale to drive significant climatic change (Sloan 2008, Erlykin 2009, Erlykin 2009a, Pierce 2009, Calogovic 2010, Snow-Kropla 2011, Erlykin 2011).

Basically, what’s actually been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. isn’t at odds with the IPCC. What is at odds with the IPCC hasn’t been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. And the claims by Svensmark, Shaviv, and other ‘GCRs drive climate’ proponents have been debunked at pretty much every step of the way. GCRs may have some influence on cloud behavior, but they’re not responsible for significant climatic changes now or in the geologic past

 

[Oddball]

Yep.

That tears it.

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

Wow....You've been a one-man regiment of strawmen lately.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yep.

That tears it.

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

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

We dumped tons more crap into the atmosphere 40 years ago when you climate change idiots were yelling that we were doomed to freeze to death. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Get over it and find a new calamity to exploit.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think its a drop dead certainty that the primary cause of heat on earth is the sun.

And it follows that as the suns activity changes (as it does from time to time) that is going to effect the earth's atmosphere.

Of course that does NOT imply that nothing else can effect the atmosphere.

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

The issue for our consideration is not DO THESE THINGS CHANGE CLIMATE? but HOW MUCH DO THERE DIFFERENT PHEMOMENA CHANGE THE CLIMATE?

Looks to me like the experts are not of one mind in regard to that question.

I can live with that uncertainty.

Apparently many of you cannot.

Such is life.

agreed. there is a cycle of life, which we learned more of after the 2 billion ( in 1980-90s' dollars) boondoggle, oops, I mean study of 'acid rain' and depletion of ponds lakes etc.

Being a good steward of the environment makes sense to me both aesthetically and naturally, but some folks don't recognize a line between the known, unknown and how to cope rationally with that fact, so they , lets say overcompensate, to be kind.

Folks like Al Gore and Patrick Moore ( founder of Greenpeace) both had their hearts in the right place, however, one became totally unhinged and is in fact hurting his own cause, the other recognized that politics had taken over and excused himself from his own organization recognizing that it had become a 'grind your axe' football.

must spread....

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep.

That tears it.

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

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

We dumped tons more crap into the atmosphere 40 years ago when you climate change idiots were yelling that we were doomed to freeze to death. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Get over it and find a new calamity to exploit.

Another fucking ignoramous, or purposeful liar. There was not a consensus of an immenent ice age 40 years ago. Another lie from an obese drugged out radio jock and other liars.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

 

[Oddball]

Another fucking ignoramous, or purposeful liar....

Takes one to know one.

 

[wirebender]

Yep.

That tears it.

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

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

Your thinkning process is simply amazing. Amazing in that it is about as shallow as that of anyone I have ever read. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere certainly has an effect. The effect being, that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. That's it. Simply stating that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere has an effect does not in any way offer up even the smallest bit of proof that putting CO2 into the atmosphere alters the climate. Wishing it were so, or hoping it were so, or even fearing it were so simply does not cut it.

Got any proof to support your belief?

 

[wirebender]

We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).

Dangerous business, rocks, for a hand wringing warmist, to start examining the paleoclimate. The unfortunate (for you) fact of the paleoclimate is that it supports the claim of CO2 driving the climate even less than it supports the CERN findings.

And where do you get the idiot idea that there is no evidence to support the CERN findings in the paleo record? Are you trying to claim that there is no period in the paleo record in which there were 314 months of consecutive warming? Show me some proof to support any such claim. Hell, in the past 50,000 years there are multiple time periods where temperatures rose more rapidly than the present for many years in a row. You want to claim that it didn't happen because there was no electronic sensor present to record the event?

 

[editec]

Yep.

That tears it.

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

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

Your thinkning process is simply amazing. Amazing in that it is about as shallow as that of anyone I have ever read. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere certainly has an effect. The effect being, that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. That's it. Simply stating that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere has an effect does not in any way offer up even the smallest bit of proof that putting CO2 into the atmosphere alters the climate. Wishing it were so, or hoping it were so, or even fearing it were so simply does not cut it.

Got any proof to support your belief?

The Greenhouse Effect

 

[wirebender]

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.

We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.

We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.

We KNOW that the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses supposedly alter the climate can not be described in any terms that are supported or predicted by any law of physics.

We KNOW that there are simple, and inexpensive experiments that one can do in one's own back yard that provide observable and repeatable evidence that the mechanism by which those claiming that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate simply is not happening.

Can you show me any hard, observed, repeatable evidence by which we can KNOW unequivocally that so called greenhouse gasses are capable of altering the climate?

 

[wirebender]

The Greenhouse Effect

Nothing there that constitues proof. That is nothing more than a description of the hypothesis. If you pursue the site further than simply to find a definition, you get into actual physical laws. The second law of thermodynamics for example which is in direct opposition to the claims made by the greenhouse hypothesis:

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

Then there is the law of conservation of energy:

Conservation Laws

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed"


I could go on, but suffice it to say that there is nothing in your link that offers any sort of proof. It is merely a statment of a hypothesis and does not name any physical law that supports or predicts said hypothesis.

If you would, I would be interested in hearing your description of the mechanism by which you believe CO2, or other greenhouse gasses can "trap" IR radiation from the surface. CO2 certainly absorbs IR but it absorbs and emits at, or very near, the speed of light. At that speed, how long might a "unit" of IR be within the molecule; and how does that constitute any sort of "trapping"?

The physical fact is that by absorbing and emitting, CO2 is a thermal conductor, not an insulator. The absorption and emission of IR by CO2 effectively scatters IR which serves to dissipate it within the atmosphere rather than collect and trap it as would be necessary for it to be considered to be an insulator.

 

[editec]

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.

We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.

We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.

No, actually, we do not know that.

We KNOW that the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses supposedly alter the climate can not be described in any terms that are supported or predicted by any law of physics.

We KNOW that there are simple, and inexpensive experiments that one can do in one's own back yard that provide observable and repeatable evidence that the mechanism by which those claiming that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate simply is not happening.

Can you show me any hard, observed, repeatable evidence by which we can KNOW unequivocally that so called greenhouse gasses are capable of altering the climate?

You know...I think you're just wrong.

Science agrees that you're wrong.

But if you want to dismiss basic science, if that make you feel good about yourself and the masters to whom you feel allegiance, that is your right, of course.

But you're still wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).

Dangerous business, rocks, for a hand wringing warmist, to start examining the paleoclimate. The unfortunate (for you) fact of the paleoclimate is that it supports the claim of CO2 driving the climate even less than it supports the CERN findings.

And where do you get the idiot idea that there is no evidence to support the CERN findings in the paleo record? Are you trying to claim that there is no period in the paleo record in which there were 314 months of consecutive warming? Show me some proof to support any such claim. Hell, in the past 50,000 years there are multiple time periods where temperatures rose more rapidly than the present for many years in a row. You want to claim that it didn't happen because there was no electronic sensor present to record the event?

So your unsupported yap-yap goes. This is the real story;

A23A

A real scientist, with real arctic experiance, not a pretender like you.

 

[Iridescence]

Perhaps there has just been so little understood as to what does effect the climate. Like certain farming techniques, household chemicals, even to a minute scale.... human digestion. Those things seem to obviously effect the immediate climate if the numbers are right.... Example? Cram 10 people in an air conditioned elevator and the air conditioner is going to have to work much harder at keeping the temp of the elevator consistently cool.

It just makes sense that some things do, would, and even should effect the immediate climate... but overall and on the larger scale... many of the smaller measures are modified by the larger ones. I'm certain there are not many things larger that cosmic rays that 'we' could come up with to do sufficient battle if that was to ever be the case... However, in saying that, magnetics represents an immense, dense, inconceivable force. Perhaps we will again find earth within a 'bubble', it just may not be of what many think.

 

[Oddball]

WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.

We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.

We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.

No, actually, we do not know that.

Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?