Green Room

Is “Man-made Global Warming” about to take another hit?

posted at 5:07 pm on July 20, 2011 by

It appears the warmist agenda is about to take another hit if this is being interpreted properly:

The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.

“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?

Because, Heuer says, “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.”

Oh … “only one of many parameters”, eh? Nice to see someone finally admit that.  For instance that big yellow thing that hangs in the sky each day?

Imagine that – cosmic rays have a role in cloud formation and the sun is extraordinarily active in how many cosmic rays are able reach the atmosphere and carry out that function. Apparently few if any models use it.   However the the effect is profound:

The CLOUD experiment builds on earlier experiments by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.

Emphasis mine. Back to that big yellow thing – what role does it have:

Since clouds often cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, a moderate change in cloud cover clearly could explain the warming/cooling cycle.

Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active—and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.

Got it? We’re in a solar minimum and the temp hasn’t risen in the 10 years since it has begun. Go figure.

So where does this leave us given the CERN gag order? What can you infer from that?

Nigel Calder does a good job of rounding the inferences up for us:

Four quick inferences:

1) The results must be favourable for Svensmark or there would be no such anxiety about them.

2) CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.

3) The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.

4) The resulting publication may be rather boring.

Indeed … boring only in the sense of reading dense scientific material. Not boring in its impact.

The CERN experiment is supposed to be the big test of the Svensmark theory. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.

Can’t wait to watch this one unfold. But the gag order is very suspicious and certainly infers that the results don’t support the warmist theory … or should I say “assertion” now?

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, theWashington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

 

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Little by little the hoax is being shattered.

darwin on July 20, 2011 at 5:13 PM

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has never been questioned that I know of. It is its theorized effect that has.

Most skeptics don’t argue about whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they argue about the real effect it has. Warmists think CO2 sensitivity is very high. Skeptics think sensitivity is very low. The last 10 years seem to be supporting the skeptics.

Bruce McQuain on July 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Is “Man-made Global Warming” about to take another hit?

I would call this another BIG hit.

But, like the tree falling in the forest, will the media see it?

cozmo on July 20, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Bruce McQuain on July 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

A greenhouse traps heat, making the environment it encloses warmer.

A greenhouse gas, in order for the statement to be correct, therefore must trap heat, making the environment it encloses warmer.

If the experiment shows that the gas does no such thing, can it be called greenhouse gas or is reevaluated to be more correct with what it does, which is a infrared radiation absorber/emitter?

If even in a laboratory, the gas cannot heat an atmosphere that contains it, can it be credibly argued that out in the open atmosphere it can?

astonerii on July 20, 2011 at 6:43 PM

I went to the ICCC6 conference in DC put on by the Heartland Institute (Jun 30/Jul 1st). Not a single one of the skeptical scientists there (Singer, Spencer, Ball, Michaels, et al) denied CO2 was a greenhouse gas. None.

Spencer clearly made the point that the argument is about the sensitivity of the climate to the greenhouse effect of CO2. Spencer said, and I quote, “The IPCC thinks climate sensitivity [to CO2] is high. Skeptics think it is low”.

In fact, Spencer flatly stated that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and summed up the difference:

“CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Adding CO2 should cause warming. We’re adding CO2. There should be warming. The question is to what degree? That is where the disagreement lies”.

So the argument is not whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas … it is. It is whether it has the effect that the IPCC and warmist claim it has (and thus providing a valid reason for them to call for government’s to control it). The argument seems to be going to the side saying the climate has a low sensitivity to increased levels of CO2.

Finally, you might want to go to CO2science.org and read about CO2. You may disagree with much of what is said there but the science about CO2 is pretty solid (and the skeptical scientists agree with it) and it disagrees with your assertion. The scientist who runs the site, Dr. Scott Denning debated Roy Spencer at the conference. The quotes I gave you came from that debate.

Bruce McQuain on July 20, 2011 at 8:51 PM

I admire Spencer and of course rely on his scientific judgment, and I usually don’t think nitpicking is worth the time. But in this case, I would reword his formulation.

It’s not that skeptics think the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is “low.” It’s that it hasn’t been demonstrated that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is high enough to do what warmists speculate.

One reason that hasn’t been demonstrated is that we have no way to measure the strength of the feedback effect. Spencer himself commented on an obscure IPCC admission of that inconvenient fact back in 2009.

I don’t think CO2 sensitivity is low. We don’t even have a standard for what “low” and “high” mean in this context. What I think is that before we go any further down the path of jacking around all life on earth, we need a way to measure the postulated effect and test the warmists’ hypothesis.

J.E. Dyer on July 20, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Spencer was attempting to distill the disagreement. What he wanted to put to bed was the belief that skeptical scientists all rejected the whole notion of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. They don’t. In fact, the majority of them don’t.

He also made it clear that he thought that the science had more unknowns than knowns (to borrow a little from Rummy) and any attempt to reach conclusions at this time is very premature.

But he also pointed out that as new science was becoming available it seemed to support the skeptical view much better than the warmist view (this article being an example).

While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, it’s effect has been vastly overstated by the CO2 forcing the models have shown. And, as this article demonstrates, there’s much more to climate warming than CO2 (it’s hard to do but somehow warmists have managed to mostly ignore the effect of the sun in all of this).

Bruce McQuain on July 20, 2011 at 10:52 PM

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has never been questioned
Bruce McQuain on July 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Of course it’s never been questioned – not for 102 years now. And, as a fundamental assumption, it must ever be questioned.

It’s perfectly acceptable to gather data about whether what we all unquestionably know to be greenhouse gasses tend to “absorb” or merely “scatter” infrared radiation. But everyone must be strictly indoctrinated against drawing any conclusions whatsoever based on that data, including especially the obvious ones. Because that is the only way to prevent politics from interfering with science.

logis on July 21, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Please refer to this nonsense by its proper name. It’s not Man-made Global Warming. It is properly called:

Man-Made-Up Global Warming.

stefano1 on July 21, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Every golfer knows that sun without a cloud screen is hot as hell, but that cloud screens make it much cooler.

So the cloud generation increases immediately begin the cooling.

Increased solar winds prevent clouds while solar minimums increase cloud forming cosmic rays so clouds are increased.

The only argument the World Government has left is asserting that co2 is warming everything as the increased clouds are cooling everything faster…but wait and see what happens the day the sunspots come back.

Ok, we will wait.

jimw on July 21, 2011 at 1:10 PM

astonerii, you’re leaving out the possibility that the “greenhouse gas” in question has diminishing impact.

As I understand it, CO2 only absorbs IR within a very specific band, and there’s no more energy in that band for additional CO2 to absorb. So adding more CO2 would not increase the amount of energy held within the atmosphere.

Crawford on July 21, 2011 at 1:11 PM

In order to be a greenhouse gas, per greenhouse effect, the CO2 would have to not only absorbe the radiation, but hold it for a long enough period of time to transmit that energy into the other molecules of the air, before it releases it again.

Once the radiation leaves the planet surface, it must pass through more than half the distance that it took to be absorbed in the first place, thus, when it is rereleased, it cannot reach the surface of the Earth from the altitude it is. When those half are absorbed, and they rerelease it is still further from Earth surface than it would be posible to penetrate the CO2 until you get to essentially 0 of the original energy released from the earth surface. And this is giving exactly 50% as backscatter to point directly down at the Earth surface, which is significantly more than is true.

Now, when it does rerelease the energy, it sends the energy in all directions randomly. This sends much of the energy towards the horizon, above the surface, and convection carries it to the point of the window to space. This is a cooling mechanism, not a warming one.

Now, you cannot have it both ways with CO2. Either it blocks the radiation, absorbes it, and holds onto it, and then transfers that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere, or it reradiates that energy, and thus does not warm the over all atmopshere. Of course, it is the reradiating aspect that warmists use as the mechanism for heating the planet.

Now then, lets look at the skeptic scientists and why they may not be honest about the status of CO2. They have been ridiculed for decades, the CO2 is greenhouse gas is a defacto consensus argument that the populations buys. They are fighting a war of, lets face it, credibility, as opposed to facts. So, they work their arguments around what? Oh, imperical evidence. If things work like the warmists say they should work, then such and such should happen, lets look at what did happen, low and behold, it did not happen per the arguments of the warmists, the warmists are not credible. Nothing wrong with that. It would be better to just get the full truth out, and if CO2 really cannot warm the atmosphere because of its physics attributes, then I say bring it forward.

People claim that the fact that they use CO2 to make lasers proves it is a greenhouse gas. Imagine how effective of a laser it would be if CO2 absorbed the energy and never released it. Not very. What a CO2 laser does is take heat energy from all bands, and then releases it all at its specified wavelength. Does that fit with greenhouse? It is heated to a super high temperature and it releases its energy, spontaneously.

astonerii on July 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM

I think this may be a case of confusing what CO2 can be stimulated to do, under exceptional conditions, with what it does when it’s just tooling around being its mellow self.

In any case, Crawford has it right, as I understand it:

astonerii, you’re leaving out the possibility that the “greenhouse gas” in question has diminishing impact.

From what I’ve seen, the greenhouse effect of CO2 declines by 90% or more past a certain threshold. The initial two decades or so of satellite measurements of heat escaping from the earth showed no decrease — i.e., increase in greenhouse effect — with the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere. Instead, the CO2 increase has been compatible with an increase in heat escaping from the earth. (The earth grew relatively warmer from 1979, when satellite observations began, to 1998. Heat escape increased — slightly, on average — over this time as well.)

A lot of elements and compounds in nature exert effects that are demonstrable, but are limited and can be overcome by stronger or more concentrated effects from other sources. CO2′s greenhouse effect may be in that category.

J.E. Dyer on July 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM

A lot of elements and compounds in nature exert effects that are demonstrable, but are limited and can be overcome by stronger or more concentrated effects from other sources.
J.E. Dyer on July 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM

One of the most bizarre things about the Global Warming Theology (and that’s saying quite a lot) is that the SAME PEOPLE who are utterly convinced an infinitessimal addition to the amount of carbon dioxide to the forty quadrillion tons of earth’s atmosphere will (somehow) start a wild chain reaction which will (somehow) destroy all life on earth within precisely 20-200 years unless free nations give trillions of dollars to Commnunist nations…

Are also simultaneously convinced that:

A) The government’s confiscation of exponentially larger amounts of “extra” wealth from the free market cannot possibly harm the economy in any measurable way; and

B) Rewarding individuals for being unproductive and having children out of wedlock does not make worse the very problems these spending programs are designed to “fix.”

Make no mistake: liberalism is by no means mere stupidity. People who make decisions based on their feelings (i.e., liberals) have no interest in actually BEING right. Trying to do that requires a lot of hard work, and always leaves you open to the potentially ego-harming prospect of learning something new.

Liberals care only about FEELING right. And the way to ensure that is to always agree with whatever is the perceived concensus.

And the way to go from feeling right to feeling smart is always ensure that the perceived concensus coagulates around the most perversely insane and idiotic beliefs imaginable.

logis on July 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM

with well over $70B spent on global warming research and the green technologies to fight it in the United States of America, can you find very much actual scientific research on the actual mechanism of the greenhouse effect of CO2? Go out and look for it, where in the laboratory they took CO2 and exposed it to atmosphere like conditions and quantified the activities of the CO2 molecules.

Whether they absorbed and instantly emited radiation, or they absorbed and held onto radiation, heating other molecules by bouncing off them, or they did some combination of the two and documented the results.

I have seen the extinction distance for CO2 friendly wavelengths, it is about 6 feet. Where are the equations to determine what the rate of extinction is? Some people say it is a linear trend, others logarithmic but after several hours of searching, I found no actual equations to use to determine back radiation effects. After $70B in spending, we really have no more information about CO2 than was worked out in 1909?

astonerii on July 22, 2011 at 8:36 AM

After $70B in spending, we really have no more information about CO2 than was worked out in 1909?
astonerii on July 22, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Students today spend more time studying Global Warming Theology than any other subject. But today (after a LOT more than 70 billion dollars has been spent, not just on research, but on public indoctrination) if you ask the most highly-educated “moonbat” the most basic questions about exactly how we can possibly be sure this justifies countless trillions of dollars transferred to Communist countries, and/or a return to a Middle Age technology base, he’ll eventually circle around to: “Well, we know CO2 warms the atmosphere, so OF COURSE adding any more of it will somehow kill us all in exactly 20-200 years.”

It’s as if, in 1944, Harry Truman drove out into the desert to see the results of the most massive single research program in US history. Instead of seeing a bomb, he sees a truck pull up. A guy in a lab coat jumps down, pulls out a blackboard, and with a proud flourish writes on it: “E=MC2″!

To which Truman replies: “OK, check me on this, but isn’t that exactly what we started with BEFORE we gave you guys all that money?”

logis on July 22, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Here’s a common sense summary…

Water vapor accounts for 90+% of climate change, CO2 only a tiny percent. Yet politically-motivated scientists warn that the tiny percent overrides the 90+%.

So the real summary is that…

Political motivations override scientific motivations.

dominigan on July 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Here’s a common sense summary… Water vapor accounts for 90+% of climate change, CO2 only a tiny percent. Yet politically-motivated scientists warn that the tiny percent overrides the 90+%.
dominigan on July 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Global Warming Theology is being taught in every high school in America right now.

So what does the average high school indoctrinator do when these incredibly obvious questions come up… just send the “troublemaker” to the nurse to increase his Ritalin dosage?

logis on July 22, 2011 at 7:15 PM

I would call this another BIG hit.

But, like the tree falling in the forest, will the media see it?

cozmo on July 20, 2011 at 6:31 PM

While the man-made global warming hoax is being dismantled, kids are still being brain-washed to praise and protect the earth against it in schools and on “children’s” tv stations, like Disney, where “things to do to not upset mother gaia” are fed into them day and night.

Sterling Holobyte on July 23, 2011 at 1:45 AM