CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

[gilliam]

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists “to present the results clearly but not interpret them”

theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

 

[RobbyS]

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists “to present the results clearly but not interpret them”

theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

Given the immensity of the heliosphere, and that ther Earth is hardly more than a pebble in the stream of cosmic races from it, a heliocentric apprach seem reasonable. Many people, however, resist the idea of their own helplessness again cosmic forces, and want to think they can control events. Marginally, yes.

 

[Darryl1958]

My own pet gloom and doom topic is the demographic crunch that looms as a result of the next generation being aborted out of existence. Often people will criticize the argument by noting quite correctly that the human race is in no way poised for extinction due to the Western and industrial world failing to procreate.

That is true enough.

Of course the same criticism also holds true for global warming scenarios of either the heliocentric or anthropocentric varieties. Whatever the looming disasters of the worst of the gloom and doom scenarios, mankind is not poised on the edge of extinction as a result.

It all boils down to what we are going to do about it then.For my pet project the answer is easy enough. Tell the truth about abortion that it is destroying human beings, and let people know that they should have all the babies they want to be responsible for, without worrying about gloom and doom things such as population explosions and dangerous ecological footprints. The world is not going to end through the birth of a child.

Likewise, there is not one iota of data that would demonstrate that if we devoted even trillions of dollars to the war on global warming, that we would be able to change the temperature even one degree. And when the economy is destroyed and people have to burn wood to keep warm, the trillions that we spend on global warming may well end up having the opposite effect after the economy is destroyed through heavy-handed government measures.
And this is even if the heliocentric origins of climate are minimal.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Darryl958:

Likewise, there is not one iota of data that would demonstrate that if we devoted even trillions of dollars to the war on global warming, that we would be able to change the temperature even one degree. And when the economy is destroyed and people have to burn wood to keep warm, the trillions that we spend on global warming may well end up having the opposite effect after the economy is destroyed through heavy-handed government measures.
And this is even if the heliocentric origins of climate are minimal.

We don’t need to spend trillions of doallars on it. The best thing to do, on the contrary, which would be for people to drive less (and there is no denying that we in America drive much more than we need to, even more than is good for our health) and for people to avoid owning oversized luxury vehicles, which may as well include the vast majority of SUVS; this change in behavior would *save *us money in addition to reducing emissions. It would have no detrimental effect on our standard of living. If anything, more walking and more bike riding would improve it (again, speaking particularly of us Americans). The only thing that stands in the way of making what should be an easy decision for society at large, imo, is that we are creatures of habit.

 

[Darryl1958]

We don’t need to spend trillions of doallars on it. The best thing to do, on the contrary, which would be for people to drive less (and there is no denying that we in America drive much more than we need to, even more than is good for our health) and for people to avoid owning oversized luxury vehicles, which may as well include the vast majority of SUVS; this change in behavior would *save *us money in addition to reducing emissions. It would have no detrimental effect on our standard of living. If anything, more walking and more bike riding would improve it (again, speaking particularly of us Americans). The only thing that stands in the way of making what should be an easy decision for society at large, imo, is that we are creatures of habit.

I definitely agree that we do not need to spend, and ought not spend trillions of dollars, and transform our entire economies to comply with global warming. To significantly harm the California economy over the fate of the polar bear in Churchill Manitoba is just crazy.

Also, beware the law of unintended consequences. Smart cars are great for ones and twos, but they are nigh impossible to use to take even one curtain crawler to her gymnastics practices.
Otherwise sure, these are all good things. Walk (unless you are in the hood at night), take a bike (unless you are on the Los Angeles freeway system), compost (but t does add Co2), reduce, reuse and recycle.

These are all effective and, dare I say, conservative responses to being good environmental stewards. I gave done them, and do do them. But there is a time when the MR2 has to be traded into something that has a few extra seats and is safer to transport the young ones around with.

 

[kimmielittle]

I definitely agree that we do not need to spend, and ought not spend trillions of dollars, and transform our entire economies to comply with global warming. To significantly harm the California economy over the fate of the polar bear in Churchill Manitoba is just crazy.

Also, beware the law of unintended consequences. Smart cars are great for ones and twos, but they are nigh impossible to use to take even one curtain crawler to her gymnastics practices.
Otherwise sure, these are all good things. Walk (unless you are in the hood at night), take a bike (unless you are on the Los Angeles freeway system), compost (but t does add Co2), reduce, reuse and recycle.

These are all effective and, dare I say, conservative responses to being good environmental stewards. I gave done them, and do do them. But there is a time when the MR2 has to be traded into something that has a few extra seats and is safer to transport the young ones around with.