Climate Science You Won't Hear About: Convincing evidence global warming caused by cosmic rays,sun

Recent peer-reviewed articles have been published revealing that AGW is based upon faulty models, misplaced assumptions and politically-motivated "science."

After more than 10-years of struggle against the political elite, scientists at CERN have been able to publish the results of an experiment that provides coinvincing evidence, contrary to the CW and the MSM hype, that the sun and cosmic rays have a strong impact upon the process of cloud formation, and hence, the heating and cooling of the Earth.

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere

opinion.financialpost.com...

This follows on the heels of studies establishing that AGW climate models have been completely deficient in accounting for the influence on cloud-cover in their flawed estimates and projections of the effects of climate change, and wrongfully attributing it to AGW - man-made global warming.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

New Satellite Data Smashes Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

Most curiosly, the published report has been sanitized to hide the graphic results showing the effects of cosmic rays on particulate formation in the atmosphere. It appears that neither the MSM nor the scientific community are eager for the general public to see the article or the supporting evidence.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

Scientists at Aarhus University and the National Space Institute show that particles from space create cloud cover

How long before the politics caves in and thew MSM pick up on the truth rather than the hype?

See also:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming


jw

According to Al Gore, you're now a racist if you question the man-made global warming hoax. Seems he's starting to squirm a little bit since he's had to pull the race card out of his hat.

Posted here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have thought this for as far back as I can think. Everytime I see a cloud and other aspects of atmosphere I think of the sun and its solar winds and such. I was even thinking this the other day when I see how fast the clouds rise then lightning in the matter of minutes. Then I start thinking about how the sun effects electro magnetism. Then I think farther into the vibration of cells and how something like solar energy could start the vibration and just mutiply and so forth. Cells vibrate, vibration makes static electricity, sun is energy, most living things use the suns energy and make it's own energy or something else. I do not know enough and this is just a ramble that will be useless to most. This is what always comes to mind when I think about these things and it all just seems to make sense.

I mean, solar cycles... the sun is hot, the rays hit earth.. shouldn't this kind of thing be left unsaid?

Al Gore does not bring the LuLz, and is a very disappointing person.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

Somebody needs to ask him why his father voted against the civil rights act of 1964.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
According to Al Gore, you're now a racist if you question the man-made global warming hoax. Seems he's starting to squirm a little bit since he's had to pull the race card out of his hat.

Yeah, and according to the renowned NYT climatologist, Paul Krugman, the "science" is truly settled in favor of doom and redistribution of income attributable to Gore's "facts."

What more do we need when Krugman and Gore get all the press and common sense gets left behind?

jw

reply to post by grey580


Actually, it is posted here:

Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation

And a synopsis here:
Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays

The article has been mentioned several times recently, but the MSM largely ignores it.

jw

I don't think anyone denied solar and exo solar influences and "cycles" are at work.

That's a big DUH!!

You're title and conclusion, are, however, entirely illogical.

Can we not have terrestrial (anthro), solar, and exo solar influences all at once?

The question is more: to what extent does each influential souce have on these overall "cycles".

Obviously, our species has SOME impact.

The honest debate focuses on finding out if our influence is able to exacerbate these "cycles" to an extent that civilization can not cope, and we become barbarians again.

I think even the slightest chance of that happening due to our foolishness is reason enough for caution and concern.

Do I agree with cap and trade? No, but that doesn't me AGW is a hoax, either!

reply to post by jdub297


Global warming is a hoax perpetrated to control the world's population. Any other explanation offered is a lie.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by jdub297

 

Global warming is a hoax perpetrated to control the world's population. Any other explanation offered is a lie.

That's a bold statement to be making.

Have any credible evidence to back it up?

Obviously, we should guide reproduction wisely, but I fail to see the causal relation flowing in the direction you mention between the two factors.

It sounds like a bizarre copout to me.

reply to post by unityemissions

I don't think anyone denied solar and exo solar influences and "cycles" are at work.

That's a big DUH!!

Now just hold on. The initial IPCC reports said that solar influences had been excluded because it was considered that they had no effect. THAT is the big DUH!

You're title and conclusion, are, however, entirely illogical.

Can we not have terrestrial (anthro), solar, and exo solar influences all at once?

Indeed we can, but be very careful about classifying all terrestrial sources of warming as anthropogenic, which is what you have just done in that statement.

The question is more: to what extent does each influential souce have on these overall "cycles".

Obviously, our species has SOME impact.

Yes something around 4%. Note also that since the dawn of the industrial era, even with figures that have been shall we say 'massaged', the rise in global temperature is only 0.3 deg C in 150 years.

The honest debate focuses on finding out if our influence is able to exacerbate these "cycles" to an extent that civilization can not cope, and we become barbarians again.

Unfortunately the words honest and debate when applied to climate scientists is for the most part an oxymoron. Indeed we should be debating honestly, but we are not. It is very one sided and heavily weighed in favour of the believers that man is responsible for all of the warming. If we did actually have honest debate we might be able to arrive at a plan to mitigate the results of any increase man made or not, rather than create punitive taxation schemes purely designed to shovel money into the pockets of the already rich.

To any one in power it should be very obvious on a global scale that we in the West cannot hope to control the emissions in the rest of the world. Rather than spending millions on hair-brained schemes and jollies to Cancun etc for the adherents to the religion, we should be seeing how we can deal with any possible effects. To do that however we first have to be honest about what the effects of an increase in CO2/temperature might be.

I think even the slightest chance of that happening due to our foolishness is reason enough for caution and concern.

Do I agree with cap and trade? No, but that doesn't me AGW is a hoax, either!

It also does not make it the sole cause of warming as is claimed by some in the AGW camp.

It is a great shame when science becomes as manipulated and manipulative as organized religion sometimes is.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by grey580

 

Actually, it is posted here:

Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation

And a synopsis here:
Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays

The article has been mentioned several times recently, but the MSM largely ignores it.

i've been reading similar papers something like 3 years ago...

why is it so hard to dig up possible alternatives ti the scientific communities 'bubble thought'
in fact the second link i remember ---about cosmic rays creating an abundance of clouds --- maybe 2 years ago....which was published long before the linked 24 Aug 2011 article in the reply post...

The earth itself is mostly water on the surface and will always have an ideal temperature (ocean) which it will try to achieve naturally. When the water gets too warm it generates larger storms and cloud coverage as a solution to the problem ie. warm ocean water stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Warm water in fresh water lakes come winter and you get increased precipitation.

There was also a test where they put black and white flowers of the same species in a controlled environment and depending on the amount of light they were given, one would outgrow the other. This is the natural balance of the ecosystem, it has an ideal (range) temperature based on the ratio of landmass to ocean. ::Black plants heated the environment more so and so the confined area became far to hot so the white plants outgrew the black and took over since the reflected light and corrected the problem::

If land were 50/50 with ocean in surface area we would have more violent storms as land heats faster. Eventually there would be so much rain and the lands would be shallow lakes which would heat and evaporate rapidly causing greater storms until the land eroded into the ocean and the ideal balance was achieved again.

The ice-caps keep the system nice and cool and act not unlike a battery. It's cooling capacity counters accumulated heat energy in the ocean as well it has the ability to reflect heat energy (sun) back out into space. Ice ages come and go but when the dusts settle the earth will achieve it's desired temperature range once again without fail.

Originally posted by unityemissions
I don't think anyone denied solar and exo solar influences and "cycles" are at work.

That's a big DUH!!

You're title and conclusion, are, however, entirely illogical.

Can we not have terrestrial (anthro), solar, and exo solar influences all at once?

The question is more: to what extent does each influential souce have on these overall "cycles".

Obviously, our species has SOME impact.

The honest debate focuses on finding out if our influence is able to exacerbate these "cycles" to an extent that civilization can not cope, and we become barbarians again.

I think even the slightest chance of that happening due to our foolishness is reason enough for caution and concern.

Do I agree with cap and trade? No, but that doesn't me AGW is a hoax, either!

edit on 29-8-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

I have made several posts over the past year or so about the effect of cosmic rays and lack of sunspots on climate change. The info out of CERN just reinforces my opinion.

I will say again as I have said so many times: " Build a box 1 mile on a side and you can put every human being on Earth in it with about 20% free space left over" Anyone who thinks we have any influence whatsoever on global climate is just plain delusional. AGW is a scam by Al Gore and his elite cronies to line their pockets and use the people who do honestly care about the planet as pawns in their plot. Gore and the rest of the "carbon trading" thieves need to be locked up.

Originally posted by unityemissions
I don't think anyone denied solar and exo solar influences and "cycles" are at work.

The IPCC and many AGW faithful have essentially written-off exo and solar influences in favor of the facile conclusion that, "We don't know what is causing it, so it must be us." This is the basic premise for the entire AGW religion, based upon manipulated "proxies," false assumptions, incomplete data and hidden agendas.

You're title and conclusion, are, however, entirely illogical.

Niether one of them are mine; they are those of the authors. Did you read the links?
The entirety of the post is perfectly logical. Man has little present influence and no lasting effect on the global climate.

Can we not have terrestrial (anthro), solar, and exo solar influences all at once?

No. Man's presence is transitory and localized. Those areas where we've rendered our local environment uninhabitable for people (Chernobyl, Love Canal, Bikini Atoll, Bhopal) have been reclaimed by nature when we abandon them to her.

The question is more: to what extent does each influential souce have on these overall "cycles".

How can that be explored when the AGW advocates do not consider other sources to be so influential as man?

Obviously, our species has SOME impact.

See above. Local and transitory.

The honest debate focuses on finding out if our influence is able to exacerbate these "cycles" to an extent that civilization can not cope, and we become barbarians again.

We have been the dominant species for only a few hundred thousand years. What makes us think that this is the
"normal" or "ideal" climate for Earth. The dinosaurs and other species dominated for millions of years under entirely different climate conditions. Why should we attempt to stop time at the late 20th Century, when other species have thrived and survived under vastly different climates?

I think even the slightest chance of that happening due to our foolishness is reason enough for caution and concern.

The "foolishness" is in the belief that crippling Western societies will somehow alter the actions of others with greater adverse impact upon their locales. Most societies become better stewards of the resources as they develop and mature. What makes anyone think that de-industrialization in the U.S. or the U.K. or the E.U. will affect the energy consumption and pollution of Brazil, China, India and Russia?

Even advocates for geo-engineering as a solution to, or at least mitigation of, climate changes recognize that we are not capable of effectively altering climate at present.

For two decades, the world’s governments have failed to meet their own commitment to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas. As frustration builds among scientists, some of them have begun to argue for research on a potential last-ditch option in case global warming starts to get out of control. It is called geoengineering — or directly manipulating the Earth’s climate.

green.blogs.nytimes.com...

jw

I think for my self , im neutral on the global warming climate change sun vs man thing.

i'd say 95 percent sun and well give the human dirty species 5 percent destruction to our precious inner and outter atmospheres .




al gore can shove it

Wakey [snip] wakey carbon has 6 protons 6 neutrons 6 electrons = 666 read the bit in revelations in the bible . Carbon transfers etc etc one volcano in iceland in 4 days produced more carbon than mankind in 3000 years visit jeff rense site type ion on older articles one volcano exposes the massive carbon scheme fraud 2 article on www.Augustreview.Com by patrick wood or in nexus mag page 23 aug /sept edition

Click here for more information.