GWPF – Compiled comments on CLOUD results

Russ Steele

Cosmic ray particles don’t just cause cloud nucleation, they also shrink the fonts CERN uses on its graphics…CLICK for bigger image [Climate Realist]

CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect

 Best known for its studies of the fundamental constituents of matter, the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva is now also being used to study the climate. Researchers in the CLOUD collaboration have released the first results from their experiment designed to mimic conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere. By firing beams of particles from the lab’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, they have discovered that cosmic rays could have a role to play in climate by enhancing the production of potentially cloud-seeding aerosols. —Physics World, 24 August 2011

If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal.–Terry Sloan, BBC News 3 April 2008

 Henrik Svensmark welcomes the new results, claiming that they confirm research carried out by his own group, including a study published earlier this year showing how an electron beam enhanced production of clusters inside a cloud chamber. He acknowledges that the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation will not be proved until aerosols that are large enough to act as condensation surfaces are studied in the lab, but believes that his group has already found strong evidence for the link in the form of significant negative correlations between cloud cover and solar storms. Physics World, 24 August 2011

CERN’s CLOUD experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant” one according to CERN. –David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 25 August 2011

I have asked the CERN colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. —Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, Welt Online 15 July 2011

Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise. –-Nigel Calder, 24 August 2011

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice. —Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 23 Feb 2007

10 thoughts on “GWPF – Compiled comments on CLOUD results

  1. Greg Goodknight August 25, 2011 / 8:17 pm

    Terry Sloane was right in 2008… He just didn’t have a clue Svensmark really was correct.

  2. Douglas Keachie August 26, 2011 / 10:36 am

    I still see no evidence of how any scientist can predict the future of sun spots. We just had a couple. Please point me to a web site that has a method of prediction of future sunspots, with a complete explanation of how that works. Until I see that, you might as well be on a mountain top discussing “how mighty will this wind be?” but in this case, “how long will the lack of sunspots continue?”

    You haven’t a clue, now do you?

    • Russ August 26, 2011 / 8:15 pm


      NOAA predicts solar cycles here:

      Try this paper: Livingston and Penn: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″

      After your have read the NOAA graphic and the Penn and Livingston Paper, get back to me on your assertion that I do not have a clue.

      I would love to hear you explain as to why we have no clue about our ability to predict sunspots.

      • Douglas Keachie August 26, 2011 / 11:20 pm

        The 11 year cycle I have been familiar with all my life, as the snowfall amounts vary with it, and it was well tracked at Claire Tappaan Lodge. The second piece of information is new to me. Mr. Goodknight peppered the pages of The Union without ever mentioning once:

        “All three measurements show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015. ”

        You learn something new every day. Are these numbers still trending in the same direction?

  3. Douglas Keachie August 26, 2011 / 10:41 am

    You might as well take this map, divide it up into squares, and have an earthquake pool.

    Once all the squares are sold, each to the highest bidder, the next red dot to appear gives the pot to owner of that square. This might make a cool fund raiser, as typically a new patch of red shows up every 20 minutes to every two hours.

  4. Douglas Keachie August 27, 2011 / 10:31 am

    Well Russ, I did get back to you, and indicated exactly which of the two articles above I was unaware of. You chosen to delete the information rather than post it. You will most likely delete this too, HOWEVER, if you do, you will find me making copies of everything I post and sticking it in a special blog, Called something like, “Censored Material Excluded from The Grand March of Steele” with links via your very favorite person, a certain Ms. Hayes.

    Do you moderate everybody, or just us climate change symphs?

    • Russ August 27, 2011 / 12:13 pm


      I moderate everyone that spent a lot time attacking each other rather than addressing the issues in the post on NC Media Watch. I am no going to allow any of these dick measuring contests. I am sorry for the delay, but some of your posts need a reply, and that means I need some time to do that. Please feel free to post any moderated information that does not get posted on another site. This is my blog and I get to decide what gets posted.

      • Douglas Keachie August 27, 2011 / 1:48 pm

        Indeed you do.

  5. Douglas Keachie August 27, 2011 / 10:33 am

    Well glory be. When the page refreshed, it brought back the missing comment, but it is still in moderation purgatory. Maybe I’m just a little too “sensitive.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s