Not sure where you came up with that - since it is actually contrary to what the link shows.
From following the history of it. Excerpt from my files: (Which, since I'm slack, don't include ALL the relevant articles I've seen.)
-------------
re CERN CLOUD experiment (I forgot to save original link for this text. Google phrases, many present.)
UK – Dr Jasper Kirkby(Particle Physicist) is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice.
Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.
---
realityreturns on Mar 25th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
"Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders."
Has CERN shut down, TUB? It doesn’t seem Kirkby has. He’s just being more politically correct…lol
Dr. Kirkby, in contrast, now 10 years older and wiser, has changed. In the past, he would unguardedly say: "There is certainly a greenhouse effect. The question is whether it is responsible for all the 0.6C warming in the past century, or two-thirds or a fifth — or what?" Now, to head off attacks, and controversies that might once again derail the CLOUD product, he hides his hopes and downplays the significance of what CLOUD may find: "If there really is an effect, then it would simply be part of the climate-change cocktail," a perhaps less naive, more politic Dr. Kirkby now states.
2009-06-04
Subject category CERN Colloquium
Abstract The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.
---
realityreturns on Mar 25th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Better late than never…
Only this explanatory video dated
Produced by: CERN Video Productions
Director: CERN Video Productions
04:26 min. / 11 November 2009
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088---
The only thing that will save us is proof that MMGW is the crock that 74% of the population now believe it is. The work started by people such as Henrik Svensmark on clouds and being continued by Jasper Kirkby at CERN with the CLOUD experiment will hopefully nail MMGW for the poor science and political scam that it is:
Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark on clouds
http://www.the-daily-politics.com/home/49-columnists/1364-danish-physicist-henrik-svensmark-on-clouds---
SwissBob on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Many of us are awaiting the results of the fullscale CERN Cloud Experiment with great interest. Here is Kirksby’s excellent lecture
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/?ln=frAnd guess what, the climate ‘establishment’ wanted to quash it.
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f68420101218
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.htmlSunny days for CLOUD experiment
The experiment has a long and bumpy history. The idea is to test the theory that cosmic rays spur the formation of particles in the air that nucleate clouds, in turn making skies cloudier and the planet cooler. Researchers have noted a dearth of sunspots (which is linked to more cosmic rays) during the ‘little ice age’ of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and a peak in sunspots (linked to a drop in cosmic rays) during the late 1980s, when global cloudiness dropped by about 3% (see Nature‘s feature on the project). No one knows how big this effect might be, and the idea that it might account for a big chunk of the warming over the last century is highly controversial.
The short version is that the Carbonazis tried to suppress this experiment, because it posed a threat to their religious doctrine that humans are to blame for all climate shifts. But the experiment is being run and indications are that it confirms cosmic rays significantly influence cloud cover, which in turn significantly influences how much of the sun's heat reaches the Earth's surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmwzPexMSkI&feature=youtu.behttp://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtmlMini Ice Age 2015-2035 | 100+ Year Temperature Records Dropping Like Flies & 10.7cm Flux Down 30%
NASA’s own website (
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml ) states that the F10.7 flux is “an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere.” Decreasing UV radiation, lower solar winds, allow for more cosmic radiation from interstellar space to interact with the upper atmosphere and leads to greater cloud formation. More clouds means more sunlight refracted before hitting the surface of the planet, which leads to more cooling effects.
----------------------------------------------------
>And from the video below " cosmic rays had a very big effect (on cloud formation) in the clean, pristine pre-industrial atmosphere but less so today"
Which leads into the matter of presently declining solar wind as the new Maunder Minimum sets in, and apparently *entirely_coincidental* rising cloud cover and spate of extreme cold records worldwide recently. (You probably don't know about those, since they are almost never reported in MSM.) But this is going way off topic.