CERN's CLOUD Experiment Highlights Pre-Industrial Climate and GCR's

[Mithrae]

If it were not for Svensmark there would be no CERN CLOUD experiment series.

Probably not true: A proposed link between cosmic radiation and cloud formation was around long before Svensmark first got onto the idea in 1997 - see for example Edward P. Ney in 1959 and Robert E. Dickinson in 1975 - and nor have Svensmark and his collaborators been the only ones to be interested in the idea since. Svensmark has certainly made a splash by suggesting that it's a single-cause explanation for most of the changes in climate throughout the planet's history and in recent times (requiring as a by-product the fallacy of pretty much everything else already known about climate science). But making a splash isn't necessarily the same thing as good science, and while he's undoubtedly contributed somewhat to awareness of the core idea, cloud formation is an aspect of climate science which needs to be understood irrespective of Svensmark's broader notions: The experiments most likely would have proceeded with or without him.

 

[Jack Hays]

Probably not true: A proposed link between cosmic radiation and cloud formation was around long before Svensmark first got onto the idea in 1997 - see for example Edward P. Ney in 1959 and Robert E. Dickinson in 1975 - and nor have Svensmark and his collaborators been the only ones to be interested in the idea since. Svensmark has certainly made a splash by suggesting that it's a single-cause explanation for most of the changes in climate throughout the planet's history and in recent times (requiring as a by-product the fallacy of pretty much everything else already known about climate science). But making a splash isn't necessarily the same thing as good science, and while he's undoubtedly contributed somewhat to awareness of the core idea, cloud formation is an aspect of climate science which needs to be understood irrespective of Svensmark's broader notions: The experiments most likely would have proceeded with or without him.

Nah. CERN experiments are expensive. Not enough money until Svensmark raised the profile.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nah. CERN experiments are expensive. Not enough money until Svensmark raised the profile.

Too bad money doesn't grow on trees, with all that extra fertilizer in the air, known as CO2.

 

[Pin dÁr]

CERN is a rather sinister organisation!

what statue is standing in front of CERN?

 

[Manc Skipper]

A cosmic dancer, representing the cosmic dance of the subatomic particles CERN is exploring. It's not in front, it's in the square near the entrance. There's even a plaque explaining it for the hard of understanding science-phobic conspiracists.

 

[Jack Hays]

Probably not true: A proposed link between cosmic radiation and cloud formation was around long before Svensmark first got onto the idea in 1997 - see for example Edward P. Ney in 1959 and Robert E. Dickinson in 1975 - and nor have Svensmark and his collaborators been the only ones to be interested in the idea since. Svensmark has certainly made a splash by suggesting that it's a single-cause explanation for most of the changes in climate throughout the planet's history and in recent times (requiring as a by-product the fallacy of pretty much everything else already known about climate science). But making a splash isn't necessarily the same thing as good science, and while he's undoubtedly contributed somewhat to awareness of the core idea, cloud formation is an aspect of climate science which needs to be understood irrespective of Svensmark's broader notions: The experiments most likely would have proceeded with or without him.

The linguistic insularity of English-speakers has been a problem.

Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen ...

notrickszone.com › 2016 › May › 30


May 30, 2016 - Thus it appears Svensmark's theory strengthens further. .... See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" ? Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English ? by Pierre L. Gosselin2016/05/30/though-media-refuse-to-admit-cern ...

 

[Mithrae]

The linguistic insularity of English-speakers has been a problem.

Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen ...

notrickszone.com › 2016 › May › 30


May 30, 2016 - Thus it appears Svensmark's theory strengthens further. ....

Not really, no: The theory of Ney (1959), Dickinson (1975) and others that cosmic radiation may effect cloud formation rates is strengthened. It shouldn't be overstated though: It's worth noting firstly that the change in nucleation rates (one or two orders of magnitude) between zero and normal cosmic radiation exposure, as measured by the experiment mentioned in the OP, will obviously be far larger than the comparatively small changes to normal atmospheric CR exposure over time due to solar cycles; and secondly that rates of nucleation for organic or inorganic vapours (~1nm) are only the first step towards cloud condensation nuclei (>50nm) and eventually the formation of cloud droplets themselves.


But as for Svensmark's contribution, his theory that (A) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for the modern warming remains as demonstrably false as it always was, since there's no long-term trend in cosmic radiation flux in that period.

Spoiler

And his theory that (B) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for many/most of Earth's climate changes over the past 500 million years remains unproven. In fact looking beyond the abstract, the study highlighted in the OP pretty clearly suggests a limit to ion-induced nucleation of biogenic particles (Figures 3 and 4), at current GCR levels. That limit might be higher under higher GCR conditions, but then again it might not: And if not, even the GCR effect on nucleation (let alone cloud condensation nuclei, clouds, and finally potentially climate itself) would be unchanged under higher GCR conditions. That would effectively negate the best (faint) points of correlation between geological climate and Svensmark's proposed supernova/GCR reconstruction, since by his own measure the Permian, Silurian and late Devonian peaks in supernova frequencies all meant a GCR level potentially higher than today's (Svensmark 2012, Figure 17).

By contrast (as I've noted in the past) even Svensmark himself recognises some degree of correlation between his GCR reconstruction and carbon dioxide, which suggests that even if/to the extent that the climate correlation is valid, good old-fashioned CO2 must be considered as a contributing cause or enhancer of geological climate changes.

 

[longview]

Not really, no: The theory of Ney (1959), Dickinson (1975) and others that cosmic radiation may effect cloud formation rates is strengthened. It shouldn't be overstated though: It's worth noting firstly that the change in nucleation rates (one or two orders of magnitude) between zero and normal cosmic radiation exposure, as measured by the experiment mentioned in the OP, will obviously be far larger than the comparatively small changes to normal atmospheric CR exposure over time due to solar cycles; and secondly that rates of nucleation for organic or inorganic vapours (~1nm) are only the first step towards cloud condensation nuclei (>50nm) and eventually the formation of cloud droplets themselves.


But as for Svensmark's contribution, his theory that (A) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for the modern warming remains as demonstrably false as it always was, since there's no long-term trend in cosmic radiation flux in that period.

Spoiler

And his theory that (B) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for many/most of Earth's climate changes over the past 500 million years remains unproven. In fact looking beyond the abstract, the study highlighted in the OP pretty clearly suggests a limit to ion-induced nucleation of biogenic particles (Figures 3 and 4), at current GCR levels. That limit might be higher under higher GCR conditions, but then again it might not: And if not, even the GCR effect on nucleation (let alone cloud condensation nuclei, clouds, and finally potentially climate itself) would be unchanged under higher GCR conditions. That would effectively negate the best (faint) points of correlation between geological climate and Svensmark's proposed supernova/GCR reconstruction, since by his own measure the Permian, Silurian and late Devonian peaks in supernova frequencies all meant a GCR level potentially higher than today's (Svensmark 2012, Figure 17).

By contrast (as I've noted in the past) even Svensmark himself recognises some degree of correlation between his GCR reconstruction and carbon dioxide, which suggests that even if/to the extent that the climate correlation is valid, good old-fashioned CO2 must be considered as a contributing cause or enhancer of geological climate changes.

I think you have misunderstood Svensmark's theory about cosmic rays and clouds.
It has almost nothing to do with the volume of cosmic rays in space, but rather that the amount of those rays that reach beep enough
into the atmosphere to cause clouds to form.
From skeptical science.

The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field
were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly
decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm.

So the theory is not that the amount of Cosmic rays has been increasing.

 

[Mithrae]

I think you have misunderstood Svensmark's theory about cosmic rays and clouds.
It has almost nothing to do with the volume of cosmic rays in space, but rather that the amount of those rays that reach beep enough
into the atmosphere to cause clouds to form.
From skeptical science.

So the theory is not that the amount of Cosmic rays has been increasing.

That's the part of the theory to do with recent climate change; changes in galactic cosmic radiation over such a short time-frame are likely to be negligable. The wave pattern of the CR flux over the past few decades in the image I posted is due to variation of the sun's magnetic field over the solar cycles. However, as I've pointed out, there's no trend over that period, so while CR-induced cloud formation might help modulate global temperatures in ~11 year cycles, its influence on the warming trend is obviously close to zero.

Svensmark has also proposed GCR influence on climate over geological time-frames, for example in the 2012 paper which I linked to. That part of the theory might have some merit, though it doesn't seem to be proven and as I noted it seems that even there greenhouse gases are likely to have a considerable role. Variation in cosmic radiation over the past 500 million years is attributed by Svensmark primarily to the proximity of our sun to nearby supernovae (due in part to the sun's movement across the galactic plane and between the spiral arms).

Here's a blog post on the subject by one of Svensmark's collaborators, Professor Nir Shaviv which Jack posted in a thread from July last year:
Sights from a Field Trip in the Milky Way: From Paleoclimatology to Dark Matter | ScienceBits

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...nsmark-shaviv-and-veizer-their-own-words.html

Right or wrong, this is at least one of the few topics on which Jack has provided plenty of interesting and useful links

 

[Deuce]

CERN is a rather sinister organisation!

what statue is standing in front of CERN?

...what in the flying **** could possibly be considered "sinister" about CERN?

It's one of the biggest international cooperative efforts of pure science in history. Just smashing atoms together harder than they've been smashed before, because that's how we're going to learn some more about how the universe is put together.

 

[Pin dÁr]

...what in the flying **** could possibly be considered "sinister" about CERN?

It's one of the biggest international cooperative efforts of pure science in history. Just smashing atoms together harder than they've been smashed before, because that's how we're going to learn some more about how the universe is put together.

Asides lying? The whole thing is ridiculous. Based on non-sense.

And well, you obviously haven't reseached it. It is a cover-up for something very very sinister.


Check what statue is in fron of the entrance. That will tell you it's real purpose.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Asides lying? The whole thing is ridiculous. Based on non-sense.

And well, you obviously haven't reseached it. It is a cover-up for something very very sinister.


Check what statue is in fron of the entrance. That will tell you it's real purpose.

Please do tell what the most pure, mostly autistic, scientists on the planet have been doing in this vast conspiricy.

They may be very clever at some stuff but lying is not in their ability range.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Please do tell what the most pure, mostly autistic, scientists on the planet have been doing in this vast conspiricy.

They may be very clever at some stuff but lying is not in their ability range.

well it is not lying per se.

But they are not very smart at all. Most people think they are, including themselves.

But they are brainwashed by our educatio..oeps indoctrination school system to think a certain ( wrong) way.

But the people at the top of cern know what they are doing.

But the whole premises cern is build is utterly wrong.

I don't care if those scientist believe they are doing the right thing.

The whole of mainstream science including pysics is utterly wrong.

hence what cern is trying to is wrong and stupid.

And not because I say so. Just do some research into alternative pphysics , like "The electric universe" and so on.



But because it is all so huge and big and complicated people believe this non sense,


Hitler knew...."make the lie big enough..."

 

[Tim the plumber]

well it is not lying per se.

But they are not very smart at all. Most people think they are, including themselves.

But they are brainwashed by our educatio..oeps indoctrination school system to think a certain ( wrong) way.

But the people at the top of cern know what they are doing.

But the whole premises cern is build is utterly wrong.

I don't care if those scientist believe they are doing the right thing.

The whole of mainstream science including pysics is utterly wrong.

hence what cern is trying to is wrong and stupid.

And not because I say so. Just do some research into alternative pphysics , like "The electric universe" and so on.



But because it is all so huge and big and complicated people believe this non sense,


Hitler knew...."make the lie big enough..."

If you can make a jet engine work better through this better understanding of the universe you get to be a billionair and also win the Nobel prize.

Given the practical applications of this electric universe drivel have been zero I will continue to think of such things as utterly nuts.

 

[Pin dÁr]

If you can make a jet engine work better through this better understanding of the universe you get to be a billionair and also win the Nobel prize.

Given the practical applications of this electric universe drivel have been zero I will continue to think of such things as utterly nuts.

you very clearly hasn't researched a bit! There are more experiments showing 'that "The electric Universe" is much much better then the conventional view. The conventional 'science'view has more holes in it then swiss cheese.

 

[Tim the plumber]

you very clearly hasn't researched a bit! There are more experiments showing 'that "The electric Universe" is much much better

then the conventional view. The conventional 'science'view has more holes in it then swiss cheese.

What prcticle new devices and profit making things have coem out of it?

 

[Pin dÁr]

If you can make a jet engine work better through this better understanding of the universe

I do agree here. but I take it you are imlying by 'Modern science"

Well, a jet engine works on EXplosions. A much much much beter way would be by IMplosion!

It is cheapier, safer, cooler , mileu-friendlier etc

Obviously that isn't done!

That shows that 'modern science' hasn't improved it at all!

We just make the wrong engines!

 

[Tim the plumber]

I do agree here. but I take it you are imlying by 'Modern science"

Well, a jet engine works on EXplosions. A much much much beter way would be by IMplosion!

It is cheapier, safer, cooler , mileu-friendlier etc

Obviously that isn't done!

That shows that 'modern science' hasn't improved it at all!

We just make the wrong engines!

In a world where I ruled there would be a law that said that the wiord science was protected, that anybody using it had to take responsibility for what they said.

I am a plumber and if I install a gas cooker in a house I must check all the gas appliances in that house as I am now responsible for their safety.

I would like to see a law that made anybody using the word science responsible for what they said. if that meant the occaisional nutter who was otherwise harmless ended up in jail so be it.

The drivel you are peddling is harmful and mad. Stop it.

 

[Pin dÁr]

In a world where I ruled there would be a law that said that the wiord science was protected, that anybody using it had to take responsibility for what they said.

I am a plumber and if I install a gas cooker in a house I must check all the gas appliances in that house as I am now responsible for their safety.

I would like to see a law that made anybody using the word science responsible for what they said. if that meant the occaisional nutter who was otherwise harmless ended up in jail so be it.

The drivel you are peddling is harmful and mad. Stop it.

wow. Do you really understand what you wrote?

First of all. NO! I ain't gone stop. You have no right to and no power to.
Neither I have the intention to stop you. It's called Free Speech.
If Free Speech is only about speeching about things you agree on, it isn't free speech now. is it?

Furthermore you would seem really happy in a police state!
Well, don't worry. It's coming. Furthermore you are cofusing 'science' with 'technology"
And no, 'science' isn't applied technology at all.

 

[Fledermaus]

wow. Do you really understand what you wrote?

First of all. NO! I ain't gone stop. You have no right to and no power to.
Neither I have the intention to stop you. It's called Free Speech.
If Free Speech is only about speeching about things you agree on, it isn't free speech now. is it?

Furthermore you would seem really happy in a police state!
Well, don't worry. It's coming. Furthermore you are cofusing 'science' with 'technology"
And no, 'science' isn't applied technology at all.

Well, we agree.

You have a right to remain ignorant.

If you give up that right, you may learn something.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not really, no: The theory of Ney (1959), Dickinson (1975) and others that cosmic radiation may effect cloud formation rates is strengthened. It shouldn't be overstated though: It's worth noting firstly that the change in nucleation rates (one or two orders of magnitude) between zero and normal cosmic radiation exposure, as measured by the experiment mentioned in the OP, will obviously be far larger than the comparatively small changes to normal atmospheric CR exposure over time due to solar cycles; and secondly that rates of nucleation for organic or inorganic vapours (~1nm) are only the first step towards cloud condensation nuclei (>50nm) and eventually the formation of cloud droplets themselves.


But as for Svensmark's contribution, his theory that (A) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for the modern warming remains as demonstrably false as it always was, since there's no long-term trend in cosmic radiation flux in that period.

Spoiler

And his theory that (B) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for many/most of Earth's climate changes over the past 500 million years remains unproven. In fact looking beyond the abstract, the study highlighted in the OP pretty clearly suggests a limit to ion-induced nucleation of biogenic particles (Figures 3 and 4), at current GCR levels. That limit might be higher under higher GCR conditions, but then again it might not: And if not, even the GCR effect on nucleation (let alone cloud condensation nuclei, clouds, and finally potentially climate itself) would be unchanged under higher GCR conditions. That would effectively negate the best (faint) points of correlation between geological climate and Svensmark's proposed supernova/GCR reconstruction, since by his own measure the Permian, Silurian and late Devonian peaks in supernova frequencies all meant a GCR level potentially higher than today's (Svensmark 2012, Figure 17).

By contrast (as I've noted in the past) even Svensmark himself recognises some degree of correlation between his GCR reconstruction and carbon dioxide, which suggests that even if/to the extent that the climate correlation is valid, good old-fashioned CO2 must be considered as a contributing cause or enhancer of geological climate changes.

But in Svensmark, temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.

 

[Russell797]

wow. Do you really understand what you wrote?

First of all. NO! I ain't gone stop. You have no right to and no power to.
Neither I have the intention to stop you. It's called Free Speech.
If Free Speech is only about speeching about things you agree on, it isn't free speech now. is it?

Furthermore you would seem really happy in a police state!
Well, don't worry. It's coming. Furthermore you are cofusing 'science' with 'technology"
And no, 'science' isn't applied technology at all.

Your series of posts sounds just like the climate science denial play book. Keep it up and frustrate our friends here to no end. When all you have to sell is doubt you can't lose.

 

[Tim the plumber]

wow. Do you really understand what you wrote?

First of all. NO! I ain't gone stop. You have no right to and no power to.
Neither I have the intention to stop you. It's called Free Speech.
If Free Speech is only about speeching about things you agree on, it isn't free speech now. is it?

Furthermore you would seem really happy in a police state!
Well, don't worry. It's coming. Furthermore you are cofusing 'science' with 'technology"
And no, 'science' isn't applied technology at all.

We have laws on slander and incitement to kill. These are limitations on free speach.

There is responsibility applied to speach. I think this should go further. I think it should be illegal to lie and call it science.

If you wish to say that the sky is pink you have tohave some sort of evidence for it or, scientifically, you are lying.

 

[Threegoofs]

We have laws on slander and incitement to kill. These are limitations on free speach.

There is responsibility applied to speach. I think this should go further. I think it should be illegal to lie and call it science.

If you wish to say that the sky is pink you have tohave some sort of evidence for it or, scientifically, you are lying.

...says the guy who won't accept the established, non controversial fact that 200GT of ice are melting in Greenland each year because ....something something Ganges.

As far as I can see, you're both in the bowl of mixed nuts together.

 

[Deuce]

Asides lying? The whole thing is ridiculous. Based on non-sense.

And well, you obviously haven't reseached it. It is a cover-up for something very very sinister.


Check what statue is in fron of the entrance. That will tell you it's real purpose.

well it is not lying per se.

So, you were lying when you said they were lying.

But they are not very smart at all. Most people think they are, including themselves.

But they are brainwashed by our educatio..oeps indoctrination school system to think a certain ( wrong) way.

But the people at the top of cern know what they are doing.

But the whole premises cern is build is utterly wrong.

I don't care if those scientist believe they are doing the right thing.

The whole of mainstream science including pysics is utterly wrong.

hence what cern is trying to is wrong and stupid.

And not because I say so. Just do some research into alternative pphysics , like "The electric universe" and so on.



But because it is all so huge and big and complicated people believe this non sense,


Hitler knew...."make the lie big enough..."

What nonsense? you haven't specified anything you think they're actually wrong about. You're just throwing out vague accusations and demanding other people go prove them for you. Why? Why can't you even explain your objections, much less prove them?

Is it because somebody told you about an "electric universe" and you took it on faith?

you seem to think literally everything is a conspiracy. How about chemtrails? Do you believe chemtrails are a conspiracy? That one is my favorite. A whole conspiracy theory existing because people can't understand why clouds sometimes look different from other clouds.