11 Responses

    1. Thank you Magnus A. I’ll make a new post with both links you sent. Much appreciated.

  1. Rolf-Dieter Heuer is not a climate scientist as stated at 6.25. He is an high energy physicists leading an high energy physics centre, the CERN. The interpretation of the result is an issue of the climate science community since the cosmic rays are only one aspect of many and therefore the statement “CERN: Sun causes climate change, not man” is nothing else than propaganda since CERN never made this statement to my knowledge. After reading the article I even doubt the conclusion made here that the sun is the main contribution but that cloud forming in respect of cosmic rays is not well understood until now. I hope further tests will answer better the open questions.

    1. I would say that cosmic rays would make up the majority in the reasons for cloud cover or lake thereof.

        1. Well, there seem to be two conclusions in the paper to my understanding:

          1) Cosmic rays increase dramatically the rate of aerosol formation which later can lead to clouds. Cosmic rays are only partly coming from the sun but a large fraction is coming from extrasolar sources. However, the solar wind, solar magnetic field and also the earth magnetic field can affect the rate of these rays.
          2) The molecules considered until now as the main contributions in the presence of cosmic rays to the aerosol forming are not doing the job, especially close to the earth surface. This means the model used until now was not describing well the cloud forming process and the climate scientists have to come up with other molecules they found in the atmosphere to repeat the measurements and to modify their model.

          Therefore nobody can claim today on this paper that the sun is the only contribution to the global warming since many aspects in this measurement are still not clarified as e.g. the process from aerosol forming to the final cloud forming seem not to be part of this measurement but is very important and especially one has to know which molecules are the main responsible for the aerosol forming in the lower atmosphere. What is their origin? Are they destroyed when other molecules are present (as CFC is destroying ozone for example)? The latter is very interesting the more I think about it. Try to imagine it turns out that these aerosol forming molecules are getting destroyed by molecules released by the human race. Then the mechanism of the global warming might be a different one but it could be still caused by us.

          I the last point I am just speculating. I just want to show you that the results of the CLOUD experiment are very interesting and that they must not be used for fast and non-scientific conclusions for one or the other side. There are too many questions open which have to be answered first. And of course, I wanted to stress that CERN and Rolf-Dieter Heuer are not from the climate science community but from the HEP community (like me) and is in this case CERN is working only as a service centre for the climate science community for one measurement/aspect of the whole climate research which is much more complex.
          I leave you here the official CERN press release which shows that CERN did not made the statement that the global warming comes only from the sun:

          And this is very important to make clear since this research needs more time to come to scientific conclusions. And these conclusions have to be made by the climate science community because they are the experts in this field and CERN can only help them with performing the CLOUD experiment for them.

          1. I basically agree Thor, insofar as the need not to jump to too rash of conclusions, but after the deluge in false science surrounding anthropogenic man made GW ‘science’, you’re going to have to give me a bit of leeway. I just wish the climate science community that’s mostly being funded by state governments would adhere to just a 1/4th of what you said in the first part of the last big paragraph in your comments.

          2. Well, KGS, since I am not a climate scientist, I do not want to judge them and in fact I am not really aware what were the latest statement from them.

            But I also admit that from what was presented until now, it is very likely for me that the global warming is caused by humans. However, to verify this further, it is obvious that more experiments have to be performed. Especially interdisciplinary measurements seem to be interesting like this CLOUD experiment and of course if the sun/cosmic rays are believed to be an important factor astrophysical data from satellite experiments. I understand that you admit that there is a global warming but the discussion is now if it has natural reasons or not and this means that if the sun would be the main contribution to the global warming the sun must undergo since more than 150 years a change and this should be measurable probably.

            Nevertheless the point is that in my personal opinion the current scientific knowledge justifies to take actions against the supposed artificial causes of the global warming although it has its costs since one has to see the impact. When the climate looses it stability, the changes easily can last longer time scales than the human civilization exists.
            You really want to tell all future generations that e.g. it was nice to live in Florida until the number of hurricanes increased from 2 per year to 10 per year? Or that the tornado season not always lasted 10 months in Kansas? All this just because you want to drive your Hummer?

            For me this is not a solution. We have to take actions because the impact of a climate change will be much more costly than everything else but in parallel we have to evaluate other possible sources for the global warming and to confirm further the ones which are currently considered the most probable ones.
            And here you have a perfect example of this. You believe that the sun is the main reason? Well, push that the resources for the solar physics research are not cut but that more data is taken by satellites. And if you want you can make political pressure that interdisciplinary networks between the communities of astrophysics and climate science are formed to ensure an exchange of the information. I must admit that working interdisciplinary is a weak point of many science fields but is very important.

            But really important is that you do not take a publication which contains only in the introduction once the word “sun” and is not making any statement in respect of the influence of the sun on the global warming to say “It is the sun! Let us stop everything and continue as before!”. This is the worst thing you can do! Do not celebrate a guy just because he is confirming your personal view in TV when he is not willing to discuss his studies in scientific journals with high reputation. What you can do? Challenge them! Ask nasty questions! Push for more resources for interdisciplinary research! And so on …

          3. Actually we’re entering a period of cooling, and you delve into Hurricane mythology. Hurricane patterns have not changed since they’ve been keeping count of them over the past 100 years or so. They are not being influenced in any way by any GW hysteria nonsense. I don’t see any reason to cause economies to tank, driven by yet more socialist driven economics due to the fear mongers of anthropogenic GW.

            Besides, who are you, or any politician or bureaucrat to determine what is the ‘correct’ temperature for future generations? Please, stop the scare tactics, and sob stories, I’m not buying. Sorry Thor. You can challenge the idiots who fudged documents, skewed their reports and Mann’s hockey stick scam, I’ve had it with the lot of them. You want hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars spent on scare mongering, I think not. It’s going to have to be proven, in black and white, and till now, the science has been taken over by political hacks wanting to feather their own nest, they are the ones that stand to gain from taking ‘man made’ GW seriously. Screw that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.