IBD editorializes today about the recent climate change findings from CERN (HT: Ace):
Experiments performed by a European nuclear research group indicate that the sun, not man, determines Earth’s temperature. Somewhere, Al Gore just shuddered as an unseasonably cool breeze blows by.
The results from an experiment to mimic Earth’s atmosphere by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, tell researchers that the sun has a significant effect on our planet’s temperature. Its magnetic field acts as a gateway for cosmic rays, which play a large role in cloud formation.
Consequently, when the sun’s magnetic field allows cosmic rays to seed cloud cover, temperatures are cooler. When it restricts cloud formation by deflecting cosmic rays away from Earth, temperatures go up.
Or, as the London Telegraph’s James Delingpole delicately put it:
“It’s the sun, stupid.”
You saw it at The Onion first!
(No, seriously!)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent,21088/
Life imitates comedy?
You just summoned Johnny. Be prepared for copious emoticons and irrelevant links.
As for CERN, it’s interesting, but not quite ready for prime time. Patience.
Clearly the solution then is to regulate the sun, and if it does not comply with the 22,873 pages of regulations, then it should – nay! MUST be banned until it falls into compliance.
Right! We’ll get right on it.
Oh wait, we Congresscritters don’t pass environmental laws anymore, that’s the EPA’s job.
This opens up a whole new world of possibilities.
Could government spending somehow be linked to the national debt?
Could unions somehow not be beneficial to businesses?
Could terrorist attacks somehow be related to distrust of Muslims?
Could birth control, free abortions and welfare for single moms somehow be related to the increasing rate of out-of-wedlock births?
Could the StickItToUs, ObamyCare, skyrocketing gubamint spending, skyrocketing regulations and inflammatory anti-business rhetoric somehow be related to skyrocketing unemployment?
Yes, such concepts seem as silly as something other the breathing causing global warming, but what if CERN is right? If the most certain scientific principle in the world can be overturned, what could be next? Pigs might fly.
“Big flaming ball of fire…”
Talk to your editors. “flaming…fire” is redundant and inaccurate. More correct and also certain to tweak the know-nothing liberal elites would be -
Big flaming ball of fusion….
We should laugh it up while we can, I am sure the left is busy figuring out how they can distort this into a justification to achieve exactly the same things that their AGW scam would have. With ideas already afloat for engineering the atmosphere, Nobody special’s comical suggestion of regulating the sun may seem like a good idea to those lunatics. Somehow, no matter what the scheme or supposed ends are, we will all be required to fork over our money, give up our guns and private property rights, and limit ourselves to one child per couple.
Mark my words……
And ya’ll, as per John’s ( A physicist ) own admission and suggestion, he should be referred to as a SEOE ( stupid enabler of evil) from now on.
Why don’t we ask the Chinese if we can use their secret weather-making machine?
“… delicately put it”
Heh.
Good luck with this. AGW proponents will give up their hockey stick when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers.
Ugh. I’m sympathetic to the skeptical mind, and feel that there are numerous points to contend AGW as an established fact. However, this article does little service to the cause, as the CERN study actually says very little at present. It is suggested that opponents of AGW don’t get science, and lack the capacity to grasp the complexity of climate systems. The article above suggests, unforutnately, that they are correct. The CERN study suggests cosmic rays play a role in cloud formation: it also states that the observed effects are insufficient to explain present warming. Why is that part left out? A generous reader would suggest it is merely an oversight. A skeptical reader would suggest it’s because those primarily concerned with investing know diddly when it comes to reading scientific studies, and have a vested interest in leaving out salient bits. Perhaps you should offer up something that engages the content of the study: at the moment, this article merely adds credence to the notion that skeptics of AGW aren’t particularily bright, and find the accurate reading of scientific publications beyond them. Again, I am quite skeptical of AGW. I am also aware that this study is very limited, says very little, and begs a number of questions that will only be answered with further research. Presently, you all sound like a bunch of rubes.
What warming would that be exactly? Because the last time I looked we haven’t had any warming since 1998. Maybe the warming that ended in the late 30′s? How about the long term warming trend since the Little Ice Age? Or maybe the very long term warming trend (with occasional dips) since the end of the last ice age?
I think it is far more accurate to say that we don’t know squat yet about the overall system. But it would be pretty firggen accurate to say the sun is the number one driver even without this laboratory study. The Earth is currently at its steepest angle right now in its 20,000 wobble cycle. How much you want to bet that looking back 10,000 years from now we pinpoint this time frame when we went into a long term cooling trend that culminated in the next ice age?
And 5,000 years from now the Sahara will be green again as the Earth cools. Just like clockwork.
Digger: “However, this article does little service to the cause [the theory that the sun is the main cause of any warming], as the CERN study actually says very little at present.”
Realizing that commenters are anonymous, comments on other blogs from people who seem to have unusually detailed knowledge of CERN (or great inventiveness) claim CERN’s management pressured the authors to water down their conclusions, “to avoid getting involved in political controversy” (IIRC). *If true*, one could scarcely be surprised that the study “actually says very little at present.”
In this vein, did you notice that the released report omitted a very telling graph that was in the on-line version? Commenters on other blogs assert that the omission from the printed version was at the insistence from CERN’s bosses.
If the graph had significant anti-AGW implications, why would the authors have deleted it from the published report? It suggests pressure either from CERN or from the editors of Nature. But feel free to tell us your theory.
“A skeptical reader would suggest [that the authors adding that the effect isn't enough to explain GW] is because those primarily concerned with investing know diddly when it comes to reading scientific studies and have a vested interest in leaving out salient bits… [T]his article merely adds credence to the notion that skeptics of AGW aren’t particularily bright, and find the accurate reading of scientific publications beyond them.”
What an interesting sweeping generalization. I would suggest that you don’t know jack about the educational level of “skeptics,” and have simply thrown up a disparaging (and inaccurate) comment because it was all your side has left. And yes: “your side”. Can you post a link to any posts from you that show you to be a skeptic, as you claim?
Yes, the big glowing sphere. Good. Nice.
But let me ask you this, Mr. Poole, if you please: Which is more useful, the sun or the moon?
Because, let me assure you, our former Dear Subleader, Al Gore, is asking himself this very question, and of course, he will find the true answer, as any rational being must. The most useful is the moon, because it frequently comes out at night, and did you ever see this big glowing sphere business out AT NIGHT?
No, never. But the moon, yes, many nights per month and at least it is trying, not like the sun.
So even those these parvenu scientists at CERN are gassing up the atmosphere with this psychic ray theory for generating the cloud of unknowing or some rot, true scientists like Algore know enough to fixate on the moon.
In conclusion, LEAVE AL GORE ALONE!
Just a matter of time before the EPA declares sunshine a pollutant.