Here I am in the midst of a disagreement on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and a Facebook friend (H/T Redmond) tags me on the very same issue with a story that might shut the AGW alarmists down.
This story is just hot off the press, literally, and appears in Nature today, and I can't say that I fully understand its implications just yet. But what I do understand is that cosmic radiation has an effect on climate change through cloud formation....I think. As someone cleverly retorted on Facebook, he can just hear Al Gore saying "bullshit."
But the most interesting part of the story is that CERN scientists have been told earlier to stay mum on the results, likely because it goes against the current AGW orthodoxy.
Of course that is not preventing other AGW skeptics from weighing in here, and here.
This kind of story could have huge political implications, not the least being in the Ontario election campaign now underway. Imagine all the effort spent on reducing CO2 and then discovering that it has a minor role at best on global warming. Embarrassing? You bet.
Your "Aha I was right!!!" moment is premature.
ReplyDeleteApply your skepticism. Stop accepting anything anti AGW at face value and going over anything pro AGW with a fine tooth comb.
The idea that cloud formation by cosmic rays from the sun is a major contributing factor to current global warming is a position put forth in 1997 by physicist (not climate scientist) Henrik Svensmark and it has received no support at all from actual climate scientists.
The CERN study merely confirms his study on cosmic ray cloud formation... it has nothing at all to do with the rest of his theory.
And as you rightly point out, there is no mechanism mentioned for how exactly we can blame it on clouds formed by cosmic rays. It's not like climate scientists have carefully studied the effect clouds have on the climate. Adjusting their models to account for a larger role from cosmic rays isn't going to change the effects those clouds have on climate.
I'll bet you jumped on the "climategate" bandwagon the very first day too, no? Do you regret that?
As for being told to keep mum about their results... there is that dishonesty problem again.
They reported their results. So it's a lie on it's face.
What actually happened is the CERN management cautioned the scientists from speculating on the other parts of Svensmark's theory that they didn't actually test.
Maybe, we'll see how it shakes out. The albedo effect is likely more significant that CO2 warming.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I still would not advocate huge global expenditures on AGW even if it were real and imminent.
Link to an interesting article: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
ReplyDeleteI follow your blog a regularly, but I was disappointed to see such poor skepticism displayed in this post. I was going to comment earlier, but I was waiting for Potholer54 to make a video on this topic, as the early blog posts were obviously bias, uninformed, and highly sensationalized. Please see the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI
ReplyDeleteI'll have more to say on this soon. Thanks for your comment and link.
ReplyDelete