CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

[rayofreason]

CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

[ThatPoetGuy]

1. So, an organization devoted to an unrelated field,

performs a study outside their area of expertise, and that's supposed to, what, cancel out the thousands of studies by experts that contradict your shallow belief system?

You've got a history of posting these nonsensical screeds, rayof"reason." It's almost like you're a True Believer.

Except for the "almost" part.

Your complete contempt for science is astounding.

[dalaigh lllama]

3. When did CERN scientists become nonsensical?

Must have missed that news bulletin...

[ThatPoetGuy]

5. Pssst... the OP thinks the "ClimateGate" emails prove global warming is a hoax.

When a source has a history of taking lies on faith, it's always best to treat the source with a healthy dose of skepticism.

And the person who posted this OP has such a deeply-ingrained, baseless belief that global warming is a hoax, it puts the blind faith of the Branch Davidians to shame.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rayofreason]

4. Seems to me...

...that you are the contemptuous one, and you really have no clue. Oh yes, studies done by people "outside their area of expertise" get published in Nature all the time. Sure, no problem!

By chance are you a scientist? Kind of doubt it since a research scientist (say, a physicist) would know quite well that cloud chambers have a long pedigree in particle physics and that CERN is the perfect place to produce high energy particles representative of at least the lower range of galactic cosmic ray energies. Also, if you were a scientist with even a passing familiarity with the GCMs used in climate modeling you would know that cloud formation is a significant unknown. Svensmark and his colleague Egil Friis-Christiansen (a highly regarded and distinguished space scientist) have for more than a decade argued and presented observational evidence linking CR variations with cloud formation. This study provides clear evidence of the mechanism. Your reaction just illustrates a narrow-minded provincialism with talk of "an organization devoted to an unrelated field" and trying to dismiss a serious scientific result as a "nonsensical screed." Talk about moronic thinking.

Moreover, there are a number of examples where a "single experiment" has led major revisions in understanding and in fact can "cancel out the thousands of studies by experts" if those studies led to a theory that was falsified by the single experiment. This is the way that science is done. Theories are in fact falsified from time to time.

And only someone quite ignorant of science would not know that. You fit the bill nicely.

[BadgerKid]

6. Actually, cross-disciplinary science isn't without merit.

The mechanism mentioned in the OP seems plausible.

[Johonny]

8. I agree

The media spin on the results, such as the op ed headline, as usual tend to over hype the actual paper results. The paper itself appears to have merit.

[rayofreason]

9. Media reports...

...almost always hype/distort the real science. But I read the paper, and I am quite familiar with Svensmark's previous work on this issue as well as objections to the GCR mechanism as the causal link between the solar cycle and climate forcing. There is real food for thought here.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Extensive DU discussion of this article already here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x308821

[NickB79]

10. And since cosmic ray rates haven't changed in the past 60+ years

It means that yet another skeptic's argument about what is causing the planet to warm is shot to hell, leaving human activity to stand out even more.