Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

james-delingpoleBy James Delingpole

If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians,  rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton’s brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made “Climate Change” industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…

Except of course in the real world the second part wouldn’t happen. No one would need to go to the trouble of bumping off those pesky scientists with their awkward, annoying facts and their proper actual research. That’s because the MSM and the scientific “community” would find it perfectly easy to suppress the story anyway, without recourse to severed brake cables or ricin-impregnated hand-washes or staged “suicides”.

This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here:

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun – not human activities – as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

Read the rest at The London Telegraph.

40 Responses to Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

  1. Joe September 20, 2011 at 10:51 pm #

    Not changing the subject at hand but I hope that you and your family are doing OK in this dire economy as well as everyone on this site. It has been pure hell for most of my dear friends. Hope that all is well for you, Neil, Mr. Knot as well as others. My best friend just passed with cancer and my close friend is going through Chemo. Life is too short to argue when our dear friend’s live’s are on the edge. We don’t know how well we have it until the “bright light” comes calling. Keep my friends in your prayers and I would suggest to all that you sign up for “The Caring Bridge” and donate to people going through this dark period of their life with Cancer. You never know, we may be their someday? Enough pontificating! Get back on point.

  2. Rob N. Hood September 18, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    Way to be the responsible adult in the room Joe. Impressive.

  3. Joe September 11, 2011 at 10:06 pm #

    Suggest that all get back on point. This conversation is useless.

  4. Rob N. Hood September 11, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    Oh gosh, they’re onto me! Foiled again by the brainiacs on the Right! If only I could be as no-nonsense and surgically witted as they…!

  5. Joe September 10, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    I agree Neil, I will cease the silly rants back and forth with a left wing liberal that never answers other that bull and changing subjects. Noticed on this site that he does this quite often. Does he have a pattern? Seems so.

  6. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 10, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    Silly stuff.

  7. Rob N. Hood September 10, 2011 at 7:13 am #

    Good one Joe. Very scintillating. And thanks V. But we musn’t appear too smart or the natives get riled up and offended by our “elitism”.

  8. Joe September 9, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Your “Depth” of facts is lacking.

  9. Rob N. Hood September 9, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    BTW- “depth” is an actual word… just sayin’.

  10. Rob N. Hood September 9, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    Really Joe? You know A word? Wow, congrats. I simply chose a different way to express myself. This is very sad…. for you. Keep up the scintillating dialogue. (wow, I know A word too!!)

  11. Joe September 8, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    It’s “indepth” by the way. Keep your english proper or do you speak pashtun?

    • V September 9, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

      You show deep knowledge after in-depth study. You’re wrong Joe. Indepth isn’t even a word.

      Depth of knowledge is proper.

    • V September 9, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

      What u bein’ anal 4?

  12. Rob N. Hood September 8, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    Thanks Joe, for such depth and serious input . Just sayin’.

  13. Joe September 6, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    My God, it sounds like a Movie! Bring in Bruce Willis!. Climate change, which happens daily is natural. This V guy I doubt is on Meds. Must be a friend of Hoffa or Maxine Waters or Biden? Just sayin”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 8, 2011 at 5:34 am #

      CUT!!!!!

  14. V September 5, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    What??? It cant be true… The sun changes climate in our solar system? Wow. What a fascinating study. Sounds expensive. Ooh, yeah. Hurts the republicans, don’t it. Hardworking antisocialists. Innacceptive of change (aka progress). Well, anyways, the young generation requires funds to create from their dreams (progressivism). The wiser understand that the more you have the better it is. Natural. Personal liberty, as in satisfying needs whatever they shall be (including caring for ones self his family and friends) is the free libertarian republican way. One that cuts ties with social obligations (this includes all the people outside of the republicans circle (this being those that aren’t: them selves, their friends, their families).

    Are the republicans or democrats correct? Neither. Both are biased too strongly by their personal beliefs. Every issue needs to be addressed individually and not provocated based on preconceived notions. Unfortunately, consideration is time expensive. No one can consider everything so we generalize, we follow trends, those with positive results we repeat, with preconceived notions towards the outcome. This is bias. When you disregard things without full consideration. We are all guilty of this.

    [q]Sun Causes Climate Change Shock[/q]

    I don’t understand the shock. The sun is the primary heat of the solar system. Gravity and strong nuclear forces cause matter to burn (burn as in decay in W+ W- & Z bosons and light). The biggest body of the solar system is the gravitational body. This means the sun (1 million mile diameter body) produces the most heat. The earth also produces heat due to its own gravity. The eart itself contains the potential for change.

    1. The sun heats the earth. (photons and cosmic rays). The sun is subject to change. It regularly goes through changes so the potential for change is pronounced, shown as capable, the sun could at any given moment change the temperature (measure of heat) of the earth to unsurvivable conditions (like with a strong coronal mass ejection. “Sun Causes Climate Change…” Obviously.

    2. a) The earth itself, as a massive body, is radiative (in fact the only non radiative form of matter is darkmatter). Pressure creates heat, the mass of the eart is convertable to energy. E=mc^2. Fluctuations in the earth itself (as possible with a sudden gravitational drop should a gravitational wave from a binary system pass the earths spacial field) could cause a change in climate.

    2. b) hyper volcanic activity on the earth could change the planets climate.

    3. An asteroid could cause the climate to change, by shear impact force and magma release; by altering the earths orbital location (throwing the earth out of the goldilock zone would destroy the possibility of life, altering it just a little makes it unihabitable to those that emerged in such set conditions.) Life would persist on earth if the climate changed a little, human life may not be able to cope with the change, though. We should strive to keep the planet at the current conditions (ones proven to keep human life). This is the republican (conservative) way. Keeping the earth pristine

    4. All living organisms of the earth affect its climate. Every living creature on the earth has an influence on the temperature of the earth. Each second you live your 37 degree celsius body radiates into your cooler temperature surrounding (usually). Thermodynamics. Heat disperses, in search for equilibrium. Humans have found other ways of radiating heat. Humans have increased heat production 10 fold (by a conservative measurement). This means that each person releases heat energy of 10 people into their surroundings (some average a thousand times when television heating airconditioning refrigeration transportation etc. are figured into the equation). If everyone on the planet released 1000 times the energy of 1 person then our 7 billion population would actually have an influence of a 7 trillion natural human population. And that’s industry. It is anthropogenic (human controlled) effect.

    There are many other cosmic effects that could alter the earths climate. We should strive to preserve our home. Protect the living conditions. Arming ourselves against enemy attack, preserving the climate, asteroid interception plan, solar shielding (controlled of course). Protect against all possible negative events. Climate change should be considered as one of those negative possibilities.

    4.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 6, 2011 at 4:48 am #

      V, the more you write the less I understand. I don’t know where you were educated but if I were you I would ask for my money back.

    • Jerk A. Knot September 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

      Sloppy cut and paist job MR V…. aslo it is very manic to say the least.

      Let the meds take hold befor opperating the computer…

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 6, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

        Now now JAK, he may or may not be on meds, we have no way of knowing that. There is plenty of meat to chew in his comments. Like when he said:

        “An asteroid could cause the climate to change, by shear impact force and magma release; by altering the earths orbital location (throwing the earth out of the goldilock zone would destroy the possibility of life, altering it just a little makes it unihabitable to those that emerged in such set conditions.)”

        This statement is just makes no sense. It contradicts itself! If an asteroid or some other mass large enough to shift the Earth’s orbit (Yes V, Earth is a proper noun and should be capitalised) impacted the surface of the Earth, um….. can you say stick your head between your legs and kiss your a** goodbye? The climate would change alright, to ash that is. It would change to ash.
        I’m no physicist but I’m pretty shure that for something to have enough kinetic energy to knock us out of the Goldilocks zone, it would have to have substantial mass like hundreds of sq kilometers. Otherwise it’d be like trying to derail a freight train with a pellett gun.

        • V September 7, 2011 at 2:41 am #

          When the dinosaurs were wiped out not all animals were (not all dinosaurs either, birds are their descendants). While conditions become unfavorable following an asteroidal impact life has a tendency to persevere through hardship. In fact, that is ultimately the underlying principle of living organisms, we fight for survive.

          “If an asteroid…impacted the surface of the earth,” would “you…stick your head between your legs and kiss your a** goodbye?”

          Yes I would in all likely-hood, as would you and RobNHood.

          The climate changed after the asteroid impacted. The earth could no longer harbor such large creatures. Todays largest earth walker is the elephant which is a dwarf when compared with some of the beasts of the past. The asteroid changed the climate. Apes evolved. Should it hit again you could bet there would be major changes. Us apes would devolve into a new organism and once again begin our evolutionary process.

          Just as dinosaurs evolved, humans would evolve… Into what? That is actually a very interesting question, and it is calculable. By measuring orbital change we can calculate the energy density shift of the earths atmosphere. Life adjusts with regard to conditions, if you know the conditions you can theorize on what organism types would be able to survive in such environments.

          Anyways, it is true, asteroids can change the climate.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 7, 2011 at 5:20 am #

            I was talking about something hitting the Earth with enough force to shift the orbit.

          • Jerk A. Knot September 7, 2011 at 10:05 am #

            V it is an irrelevant argument… If an astroid hit the earth big enouldh to change the earth axis or orbit it would be a purly natural event. An event that no man or beast could alter. Would we all die? I would say so…. But it does not matter. Why should we care? We have just as much controll over that kind of senerio as we do over the orbit of the moon.

            The primary argument here is what do we have control over… Global warming? AGW? if we do what actions can be taken to correct any dammage we have caused? Is there a need to do so? What effect are Greenhous gasses really having on GW? So far most of the theroies of what thoes effects are hold no water. They are a scam…. for lack of a better annalogy they are the ultimate Chicken Little story!!!

            JAK

          • V September 7, 2011 at 11:51 am #

            Neil:

            “I was talking about something hitting the earth with enough force to shift the orbit.” So was I. Even more than that, what I was implying was that the asteroid that spelled the end of the dinosaur era WAS big enough and actually DID alter the Earths orbit. As a result the environment changed (the environment change wasn’t solely resultant of orbital change, but the events were sparked by that massive asteroid). Due to environmental changes organisms began to adapt. That is what evolution is, life adapting to better survive its environment.
            ——

            JAK,

            It is not an irrelevant argument. There are scientist currently working to solve such a problem. Asteroids can be destroyed / diverted, and the more time we have to react the better our survival chance. That is why we have NEO (the Near Earth Object Program). I am not a fatalist. To me nothing is over until it is over. – That covers the diversion plan portion of your argument (as in stopping the impact).

            Now, should an impact take place we cannot definitively say that all organisms would be wiped out, we can be quite sure that most of the macro and some of the micro organisms would be wiped out. With an impact force high enough the Earth itself could be destroyed (taking all life with it), but if the Earth were to survive so could life, potentially.

            You are correct, some things are harder to control than others. A relatively easy factor to control is the emission of greenhouse gases. By lowering release we lower heat retention.

            You want to understand the process of heat retention. Go visit an industrialized city with a population of 10 million people. Take a heat measurement at street level. Now exit the city and drive 100 miles. Check the temperature there. This is latent heat.

            While the anthropogenic climate change effects are minor, over prolonged periods all this accumulates. You may not see the ramifications of this in your lifetime but your children may; your grandchildren may; one day life on this planet may be unbearable because of our irresponsible actions today.

            Even if the possibility of this happening was extremely low (which it is not) should we really take that chance?

          • V September 7, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

            “This is latent heat.” These UHI’s (urban heat island’s) cause snow to melt in the winter and water to evaporate in the summer at an increased rate. Latent heat is required for phase shift.

        • V September 7, 2011 at 2:50 am #

          Correction: “we fight FOR survive.” should read ‘we fight TO survive.’

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 7, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

            Sorry V, you are just plain wrong. The Chicxulub impact did not alter the Earth’s orbit in any meaningful way. See here: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/Chicxulub.html
            You are also wrong about the heat from the urban heat island effect. That is not latent heat. It is just heat. The heat is absorbed from the sun and warms the concrete and structures in urban areas, and when the heat source goes away that heat comes back out of the concrete and structures via convection. Latent heat is heat that is absorbed or released during a change of state, or phase. An example is when you boil water (212 degrees F. at sea level) you can pour on many more BTU’s (add heat) but the tempuature remains 212 degrees F. The result of the added latent heat will be that the water just boils faster, it will not become hotter. My line of work is HVAC so I know what I am talking about, it is a factor, a critical factor, in air conditioning systems. Of course refrigerants have different boiling points than water, but the principle is the same.

          • V September 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

            1. What exactly is your definition of a non-meaningful orbital change?

            2. You’re absolutely correct about latent heat.

            All that aside, UHI’s are an excellent example of anthropogenic global warming. Over time the heat from the city spreads out warming the rest of the planet. The Earth is large and therefore this increase is not instantly noticable, but overtime the effects will become more pronounced.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 7, 2011 at 8:20 pm #

            Wow. I don’t know why I bother but if you look at the link I pasted it says:

            “The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
            The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth’s rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
            The impact does not shift the Earth’s orbit noticeably.”

            So my exact definition of non-meaningful is the word meaningless. Which means that there was no effect whatsoever on the climate by the impact other than the short-term (geologically speaking) devestation. There was no long term climate changes due to a shift in the Orbit of the Earth by that event. It did not happen. The only one I have ever heard say that the orbit of the Earth was shifted by the Chicxulub impact is you. And you are the only one I have ever heard say that UHI’s are anything other than a localized phenomenon. However, the EPA does say that the UHI effect cases an increase in GHG emissions. And if you believe in the AGW theory, which I think you do, then you could use that as an argument for an indirect effect of UHI’s. But I have not heard anyone say that UHI’s are a direct contributor to global warming. Other than you.

          • V September 8, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

            Thanks for the link Neil. Tought me about the Chicxulub asteroid (Prior to your comment I hadn’t even known its name). It seems that if we scale down the asteroid to the size of a grain of sand the earth would be 1.5 meters in diameter. The asteroid, although large, was miniscule when compared with the size of the Earth. I see exactly what you mean when you say that the orbital shift was meaningless. I should have looked at and evaluated this specific event before using it to exemplify the tie in between orbital shift and climate change. Oh well, live and learn.

            Still, the premise holds true. If the earth were pushed out of its current orbit there would be a change in climate.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 8, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

            If there were an event large enough to shift our orbit there would be no one left to care. And that is my point.

  15. anita September 5, 2011 at 7:37 am #

    I find studies regarding this without out even decreasng the stupid emission of co2 stupid! cosmic rays may be forming cloud which may cause greenhouse effect. But I think this co2 has a major role in this global warming as, tonnes of co2 is being pushed into the world day by day!

    • Dan McGrath September 8, 2011 at 11:35 am #

      Pushed into the world from where? Another world?

  16. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 2, 2011 at 8:22 am #

    Obama fulfills campaign promise! Not!

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
    “Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world’s ocean in response to global warming.

    While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it’s been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.

    So what’s up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.”

    So, the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific is what done it, not our fearless leader? Hmmmmm.
    Well I guess this is proof, proof I say, that AGW is not happening because the predictions were for continuously rising sea levels. You’d think?
    Well I guess not because the story says:

    “But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.

    “We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise,” says Willis. “But El Niño and La Niña always take us on a rainfall rollercoaster, and in years like this they give us sea-level whiplash.”-”

    Oh it just can’t last!!! Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again. Oh? so I guess none of the auqafers are going to get any of the extra rain fall water? The rain water is just going to glide along the surface straight downhill like on a cookie sheet to the ocean? There’ll be no evaporation, or recharging of aquafers? Nothing like that. Hmmmmm.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 3, 2011 at 6:00 am #

      Here are more things that AGW alarmists have got wrong.

      http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-sciences-tangled-web
      “•Hurricanes will worsen – the US has just been hit with a category 1 hurricane and the alarmists are out in force. Ignorant politicians are blaming storm damage on global warming. What they do not mention is that Irene was the first storm to hit the continental US in almost three years. It should also be noted that all but one of the ten deadliest US hurricanes occurred with “safe” CO2 levels below 350 ppm.

      •Himalayan glaciers are melting – once again, new studies reaffirm past results that say most glaciers are stable. As it turns out, the alarmist backed studies were only based on a few low altitude glaciers that were melting, not the multitude of other stable or growing glaciers. Similar results have been found in Alaska.

      •Climate is near or past a tipping point – studies by real climate scientists have shown that the current crop of climate models are incapable of predicting well documented bouts of rapid climate change in the past. They cannot get the past correct, there is no way they can predict the future.

      •Ice caps are melting underneath – it turns out that the ice caps are actually growing underneath through a process called basal freezing.

      •Earth’s atmosphere is rapidly heating up – actually, NASA has discovered that Earth’s upper atmosphere is radiating more heat back into outer space than predicted. As a consequence, all of the computer models used for the past 30 years are wrong.

      •Ocean waters are warming rapidly – evidently not during the last ten or so years.

      •Sea levels will rise catastrophically – as mentioned above, sea levels dropped last year.

      •Arctic pack ice is melting like never before – these myopic chicken littles have obviously never heard of the Holocene Climate Optimum, when temperatures were warmer and consequently pack ice sparser than today.

      •It’s hotter now than any time in the last 10,000 years – see the previous answer. Today is not the hottest period since the end of the last glacial period.

      •The ocean will stop absorbing CO2 – sorry, but according to actual data, sequestration by the oceans had not diminished significantly and land plants have greatly increased their absorption of the gas.

      •Temperatures are going to rise ever faster in the future – funny, they said that 10 years ago but temperatures have not risen over the last decade.

      These are only a few of the bogus claims made by climate change alarmists that have been shown to be false. Yet the idiots in the news media cannot help but link every spell of hot or cold weather, every storm, every flood, every drought as proof of global warming. Global warming has become the monster under the bed, used to frighten children and the uneducated. Politicians spend their nations into penury, all the while claiming they are creating “green jobs” to help fight global warming.”

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 3, 2011 at 8:02 am #

        Yeah, sorry Dan. The size of that was bigger than it looked when I copied it.

  17. Joe September 1, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    Who woulda thunk? the Sun? We have said this for years Neil. Nice read. Keep it up!

    • Rob N. Hood September 18, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

      The sun… that completely unreliable and weak actor… why does he think he’s so big and powerful?! He’s full of it (energy that is).

  18. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD September 1, 2011 at 6:13 am #

    Green jobs are going to save the economy! NOT!!!

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Solyndra-Shutting-Down-128802718.html
    “Solyndra, a major manufacturer of solar technology in Fremont, has shut its doors, according to employees at the campus.

    “I was told by a security guard to get my [stuff] and leave,” one employee said. The company employs a little more than 1,000 employees worldwide, according to its website.”

    “Solyndra was touted by the Obama administration as a prime example of how green technology could deliver jobs. The President visited the facility in May of last year and said “it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that. “-“

  19. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD August 31, 2011 at 4:48 am #

    I still think Svensmark will be a scientist of note in history. He was scorned, ridiculed, but mostly ignored by the world’s scientific “community” with his study on cosmic rays and cloud formation. But for now mum’s the word because the AGW “community” needs to find a way to spin this.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes