Svensmark & CERN: cosmic rays influence climate
A cloudy day for global warming zealots
Climate science is anything but settled.
For years, physicist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute (who has presented at conferences organized by CFACT and EIKE) has been asking inconvenient questions about the relationship between the sun, clouds and climate. He demonstrated in the lab that cosmic rays from the sun affect cloud
Henrik Svensmark
formation. Cosmic rays are a factor not meaningfully considered in the computer climate models which global warming proponents have declared to be so robust that they are beyond discussion.
To the vexation of true climate believers, Svensmark’s work has been confirmed at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. CERN is home to the Hadron super conducting super collider near Geneva. CERN simulated the effect of cosmic rays in the earth’s atmosphere and found that it does indeed influence cloud formation.
This is very inconvenient science for the global warming campaigners, researchers and myriad carbon carpetbaggers, all of whose incomes have come to depend on government willingness to accept the authority of climate models as gospel. The more people know about computer climate models, the less they are willing to curtail the freedom and prosperity of the developed world.
Can E
uropean scientists like Svensmark and the researchers at CERN restore rigorous scientific questioning to climate science? Will scientists again research, question, write and speak without fear of political reprisal? Is this the beginning of a new enlightenment? Europe’s done it before.
Filed Under: CFACT Europe • Climate • Featured
About the Author: 
There are a few factual errors in this post:
1. You write, “Cosmic rays are a factor not meaningfully considered in the computer climate models which global warming proponents have declared to be so robust that they are beyond discussion.”
I suppose that this can be considered as technically correct on the grounds that it’s always easy to find a nitwit source for almost any claim. However, among the scientific community, nobody is making any claims that climate models are “beyond discussion”. There is a great deal of work going on in climate modeling by at least a dozen competing groups, each trying to improve its model by any means possible.
2. You write, “To the vexation of true climate believers, Svensmark’s work has been confirmed at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research.” This is completely wrong. First, the CERN paper published in Nature served to demonstrate just how tricky this problem is. Their results were too low by a factor of ten, which they now believe to be due to the fact that their experimental vessel is TOO clean. As a result of this experimental work, it now appears that one of the most important factors in cloud formation is the presence of extremely low concentrations of nitrogen compounds, which were originally considered to be a contaminant. Without getting into some extremely technical issues, I think it best to characterize this paper as providing us with an outline of the factors that appear to be important, so that in coming years the CERN people can zero in on those factors and start providing us with quantitative results that can be used in climate models. This paper, however, does nothing to confirm or deny hypotheses regarding the magnitude of the role that cosmic rays play in cloud formation. Moreover, whatever role they do play, it is highly unlikely that cosmic rays provide an explanation for recent increases in temperatures, as cosmic ray levels have not shown a secular increase in any fashion concomitant with temperature changes.
3. You wrote, “CERN simulated the effect of cosmic rays in the earth’s atmosphere and found that it does indeed influence cloud formation.” This is, at the least, highly misleading. It has been known for decades that cosmic rays play some role in cloud formation — after all, it’s the same phenomenon that makes cloud chambers useful. What isn’t known is the magnitude of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
4. You wrote, “This is very inconvenient science for the global warming campaigners, researchers and myriad carbon carpetbaggers, all of whose incomes have come to depend on government willingness to accept the authority of climate models as gospel.” While the extreme vagueness of this statement makes it hard to reject, I think that it grossly misrepresents the financial incentives of the various actors at work. Research scientists, for example, do not benefit much from confirming expectations — the real rewards go to those who confound expectations with surprising discoveries. Anybody who comes up with a disproof of the basic anthropogenic climate change hypothesis will surely win a Nobel Prize for science. Thus, for researchers, the incentives are AGAINST confirmation of ACC.
I don’t know whom you refer to as “carbon carpetbaggers”, but I am unaware of any such actors. However, there is abundant evidence of large amounts of money being provided to support anti-science propaganda; I would be happy to provide some of this evidence, if you desire it.
4. You wrote: “The more people know about computer climate models, the less they are willing to curtail the freedom and prosperity of the developed world.” On the contrary, we have a very strong correlation between knowledge of the science behind climate change and recognition of the seriousness of the problem. Certainly the fact that all of the relevant scientific organizations have signed declarations supporting the hypothesis of ACC demonstrates that the knowledgeable scientists strongly support that hypothesis. My own experience is that very few of the opponents of the ACC hypothesis have actually read IPCC AR4 WG1, must less understood any of it. There are a few, to be sure, but they are such a tiny minority as to be insignificant.
5. You wrote: “Can European scientists like Svensmark and the researchers at CERN restore rigorous scientific questioning to climate science?” This question assumes that climate science has lost its rigor. A cursory examination of the scientific literature on climate change will make it immediately obvious to the most casual observer that your assumption is incorrect.
6. You wrote: “Will scientists again research, question, write and speak without fear of political reprisal?” This assumes that there have been political reprisals against scientists who reject the ACC hypothesis. This is incorrect; there is no evidence of such reprisals. There is, however, abundant evidence of political reprisals against scientists who support the ACC hypothesis, such as the efforts of the attorney general of the state of Virginia to harass Mr. Michael Mann.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about these observations.
Sorry Chris,
You wrote “nobody is making any claims that climate models are “beyond discussion”. So the science is not settled then? Thanks for conceding the point.
What is the magnitude by which cosmic rays support cloud formation? A question well worth asking. One of many that will take us beyond the “settled science” of the models IPCC has such faith in.
The big money in climate comes not from Nobel awards which are few, but from the vast sums spent and mandated by governments. Surely you are aware?
Carbon carpetbaggers? The folks ensuring they get a piece of the grants, subsidies and mandates. Fortunes are being made. See, Solyndra (think hundreds of millions fell off the table and no one profited thereby?) See, British Aristocrats cash in on wind.
IPCC report? See, NIPCC report. Also, did you watch Gore’s webcast yesterday? Did you hold your nose?
Political reprisals? Read the papers lately? Questioning the AGW hypothesis makes you the equivalent of a racist or denier of the holocaust? What has been said of Michael Mann, that his data is faulty, his graph misshapen? That Climategate revealed academic misbehavior? Hardly equivalent.
Study up, Chris.
I suggest that your logic is a bit loose. Consider these examples:
You wrote “You wrote “nobody is making any claims that climate models are “beyond discussion”. So the science is not settled then?”
Here you equate climate models with ‘the science’. Now, no scientific conclusions are cast in stone; we cannot say with absolute certainty that Newton’s Laws are settled. There is no absolute truth in science, merely hypotheses that we invest with varying degrees of confidence. We are extremely confident of Newton’s Laws, even though they are not settled. We are very confident of the science underlying ACC. This is a complex hypothesis and some parts of it (such as the greenhouse effect) deserve extreme confidence. At the other extreme, some parts of it remain uncertain. The fact that some parts are uncertain does not in any way cast doubt upon those parts that deserve high confidence.
There is also a huge difference between scientific confidence and political confidence. In politics, we are often forced to make decisions under conditions of great uncertainty. The current crisis regarding monetary policy by the ECB provides a good example. We simply don’t know with any great confidence what the costs and benefits of the various options available. Yet the European body politic must nevertheless make decisions. By this measure, the confidence we have in the basic ACC hypothesis greatly exceeds the confidence we have in any of the political issues of the day. In other words, by the standards of political decision-making, the ACC hypothesis is a no-brainer. Scientifically, the matter is not settled, but politically, it’s much more reliable than our standards of confidence require.
You wrote: “What is the magnitude by which cosmic rays support cloud formation? A question well worth asking. One of many that will take us beyond the “settled science” of the models IPCC has such faith in.”
I suggest that you consult IPCC AR4 WG1 2.7.1.3 on this matter; it explains the scientific knowledge we have on the matter at that time; since then, nothing (including the CERN paper) has arisen to contradict the statements made in the IPCC report.
On the matter of monetary gain, you seem to misunderstand the role of money in scientific efforts. Scientists do not enjoy any personal gain from the money they get from the government; all that money goes to carry out research, not to line their pockets. Their salaries are paid by the research institutions that employ them. Indeed, most research scientists are demonstrably little-motivated by financial rewards; if they were, they’d be working in industry, not science! No, research scientists are motivated by the desire to build their reputations and win scientific prizes. Scientific grants are part of that effort, but overturning established orthodoxy is an even bigger part. If a scientist were offered a choice between a big fat grant to affirm existing orthodoxy and a tiny grant to upset the scientific apple cart, the latter option would always win.
You write: “Carbon carpetbaggers? The folks ensuring they get a piece of the grants, subsidies and mandates. Fortunes are being made. See, Solyndra (think hundreds of millions fell off the table and no one profited thereby?) ”
I suggest that you consider profitability, not merely revenue. For any enterprise, if expenditures exceed costs, then the enterprise is a failure. Such appears to be the case with Solyandra, although we still need to do more detailed accounting. In any case, the overall current profitability of such ‘carbon carpetbagger’ enterprises falls well below the overall profitability of the fossil fuels industry. The financial inducements at work here strongly favor anti-AGW propaganda.
I have not read the NIPCC report; it is of minor interest because it is not a peer-reviewed paper. I have downloaded it and do intend to look at it sometime, but my initial perusal did not give the impression of scientific rigor on its part.
No, I did not watch Mr. Gore’s webcast, as it is a popularization effort. I rely on scientific publications for my information.
Finally, you seem to think that there are lots of political reprisals against those who question the ACC hypothesis. This is not true, nor have you presented evidence of any such reprisals. You have a recent story about a seminar that was banned, then permitted — I don’t know how permitting the seminar constitutes a political reprisal.
Mr. Mann’s publications have all undergone much scientific scrutiny and have stood up well to that scrutiny; they continue to be referenced by many other papers, a good indication of how reliable they are. There were four different investigations of the Climategate matter, and every one of them exonerated the scientists of any wrongdoing. I suggest you consult the reports of these investigations; I can provide you with links if you would like.