Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   CERN on Global Warming
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1 of 47 (631729)
09-02-2011 5:13 PM


This column was in the paper today. I am a complete onlooker on the subject except to say that I firmly believe that we have a responsiblity to care for the planet.
What do you who study this stuff have to say?
Lorne Gunter, National Post Sept. 2, 2011 | Last Updated: Sept. 2, 2011 3:05 AM ET
Suppose an ossuary - an ancient burial box - containing the skeletal remains of Jesus of Nazareth was discovered. Its contents would prove a challenge to the central fact of Christianity, that Jesus was God made man who ascended to Heaven whole - bones and all - after his crucifixion.
That would be big news, right? The significance of it would be debated in religious circles around the world, as well as in newspapers and on 24/7 news channels. Or, it would be if the remains didn't come under the control of some Christian organization whose leaders had a vested interest in suppressing reports about the discovery.
One way or the other, though, some faithful Christians would deny the find was real. Then when that position was no longer defensible, they would continue to insist the bones were immaterial.
Something similar may be happening in the climate change debate, whose basic premise - that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous climate change - has become religious dogma to many scientists, politicians, activists and fundraisers.
Last week, 63 scientists from CERN, the unimpeachable European Organization for Nuclear Research, published a paper in the journal Nature that would seem to prove that the sun, and not humans, is the main "driver" of climate on Earth.
In short, cloud cover is the most important determinant of global warming or cooling. Tiny changes in the percentage of the Earth shielded by clouds (or not) can cause a variation in global temperatures of several degrees, down or up. Cosmic rays are the main cause of cloud formation - the more rays from outer space reaching our planet's atmosphere, the more clouds form and the cooler the surface becomes.
In turn, the amount of cosmic rays penetrating our atmosphere is determined by the sun's activity. When our sun is particularly active, its magnetic field diverts cosmic rays away from our atmosphere. This reduces cloud formation, permits more solar rays to reach Earth and increases global temperatures.
By comparison, the CERN team found human CO 2 emissions have little or no impact, or at the very least their impact as been greatly overestimated in the computer models that global-warming alarmists rely on to show dangerous future climate changes.
So why hasn't this been headline news around the world? After all, global warming and what to do about it has been perhaps the biggest public policy issue of the past decade, with the possible exception of the worldwide financial crisis. (Both revolve around whether more government intervention and spending is the best way to solve large-scale problems.)
In part, the lack of attention is due to the lead author's inherent caution. Like all good scientists, Jasper Kirkby, the British experimental particle physicist who heads up CERN's CLOUD project, is reluctant to run ahead of his data. At present, he is only prepared to assert that the CLOUD results are "a very important first step" to demonstrating the sun's impact on global climate.
But even that assertion is a major challenge to the climate orthodoxy promoted by the UN's IPCC and much of the eco-science establishment. For years, warming alarmists in the environmental science community pressured CERN not to fund the CLOUD experiment, which recreated the Earth's atmosphere in a controlled chamber, then tested various theories about the sources of clouds.
Beyond Kirkby's modesty and prudence, CERN director general Rolf-Dieter Heuer ordered the scientists who worked on the project to "present the results clearly, but not to interpret them." Interpretation of the results - i.e. explaining how the experiment indicates that the sun and not mankind causes global warming - "would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate." He instructed them in all public statements "to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."
It's hard to imagine, though, the CERN scientists being similarly gagged if their experiment had supported the politically correct belief that human activity is the main cause of climate change. Scientists whose work backs the alleged scientific consensus feel free to interpret their results all the time. They frequently claim their findings prove the need for urgent, expensive and intrusive government regulation of private decisions and actions. So why the muzzle on the CERN crew?
If nothing else, the CERN study demonstrates that claims that climate-change science is "settled" are premature.
lgunter@shaw.ca
Home | The National Post Home Page | National Post
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add lots of blank lines.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2011 5:22 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 5:35 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 5:41 PM GDR has replied
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 6:04 PM GDR has replied
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2011 10:01 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2011 2:23 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2011 9:20 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 47 (631740)
09-02-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by cavediver
09-02-2011 5:41 PM


Frankly I spent a fair bit of time with Google trying to find the original articel but with no luck. There are a number of blogs talking about it. Here is another article.
Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 5:41 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 5:57 PM GDR has replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-02-2011 6:16 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 10 of 47 (631749)
09-02-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by cavediver
09-02-2011 5:57 PM


cavediver writes:
Did you see Cern's press release? Some good links there.
That was helpful. Thanks
I watched a couple of videos and read the article.
Here is a paragraph from the article that makes it sound like it is not nearly as clear as the column that I used to start this thread indicated.
quote:
It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone, said Kirkby. Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.
It looks like CERN will return its enormous cost many times over. It is also good to get a report on climate change that employs leading edge technology being done by those with no political or economic axe to grind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 5:57 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2011 6:55 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 11 of 47 (631750)
09-02-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
09-02-2011 6:04 PM


Re: On looker??
NoNukes writes:
Yet, this isn't the first thread you've started based on an article suggesting that there is a global warming scan, is it? Do you ever come across any other kind of interesting climate change news?
There are going to be those on this forum that will argue against man caused climate change but I doubt that there are many that have the actual expertise to refute an article that supports the concept.
However, if I post an article that is against the concept, I will get the opinions of people who IMHO do know what they are talking about.
I do have a bias in that I hope we aren't causing it because it will mean a huge dispruption in our society in order to remedy the situation and I hope that it isn't necessary, but beyond that, with no expertise of my own I'm just trying to sort out the most likley truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 6:04 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 47 (631753)
09-02-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coragyps
09-02-2011 7:06 PM


That would be great if you could.
My e-mail address is on my profile.
Thanks so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 09-02-2011 7:06 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 47 (632092)
09-05-2011 4:03 PM


How to Prepare for Global Warming
As a result of this thread I started getting e-mails from someone who I thought made a great point.
Regardless of how much or how little man is contributing to the problem, global warming is happening.
With my own short sightedness I've understood the problem as being a question of how we reduce our emissions and by how much. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering that but I believe it is the case that if we reduced our emissions by 100% global warming would still continue which I think is consistent with that CERN report.
With that in mind should we not then say that global warming is happening, regardless of how much we do on the emissions side, and so we should be putting a large focus on how we as a global community are going to deal with that reality?
I’m sure there is some of this already going on but frankly I don’t hear anything about it. For example, how would countries like Holland deal with a rise of sea level? I know that a good chunk of the populated world would be under water. How about food supplies etc.? Is anything actually being done or even talked about much? I have heard people outlining the problem but I can’t recall any solutions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by fearandloathing, posted 09-05-2011 4:26 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2011 1:33 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2011 4:55 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 31 of 47 (633592)
09-14-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Omnivorous
09-14-2011 4:55 PM


Re: How to Prepare for Global Warming
Omnivorous writes:
I think we can prepare for global warming the same way were taught to prepare for a nuclear blast in the 1950s: huddle under a desk, cover our heads, and kiss our butts goodbye.
I imagine what will happen is that we'll deal with things as they happen and hope that we are able to make the adjustments as we go. That doesn't sound like much of an approach to me, but on the other hand seeing the problem is a lot easier than having to deal with a solution which is bound to be unevenly oppressing.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2011 4:55 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024