CERN climate scientist: its not CO2, its the Sun

CERN climate scientist: its not CO2, its the Sun

Another little ICE age is coming, like the one during 1300-1400...

Pål Brekke works at CERN...

Brian H | 07/07/2015

You won't like it.

bb0tin | 07/07/2015

The linked article does not say "It's not CO2, it's the sun". It gives an opinion, with no supporting evidence, that the sun may enter a decreased phase of activity. It then says that this may decrease the warming due to greenhouse gases. This is all just speculation. However, we have already been through solar minimums and maximums and have seen the warming continue despite this cycling as per this link

jordanrichard | 07/07/2015

Not to stir the pot on this whole "global warming" debate and how it is our fault and is the beginning of the end for us because the planet is getting warmer.

Just exactly who caused the ice age to end?

Grinnin'.VA | 07/07/2015

@ jordanrichard | July 7, 2015

Just exactly who caused the ice age to end?

I don't know. I defer to the scientists who study such things.

Or do you think we should just invite opinions for mostly-uninformed people and then take a vote?

Grinnin'.VA | 07/07/2015

Typo Alert: "from" not "for" in that last sentence.

Grinnin'.VA | 07/07/2015

Or maybe just count the strongly-held claims pro and con and then declare that the scientists can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Better yet, form a focus group to decide the matter. Each member of the U.S. House of Representatives gets to designate one member of the focus group. Then the whole thing would deteriorate into a shouting match between the religious right supporters and the Democrats with everyone else yawning in boredom.

Best of all: Solicit SuperPac money to argue pro and con with the matter decided by which faction raises the most money.

Possibly we could have the SCOTUS judge the matter based on style points awarded to the most outrageous claims made by the SuperPac-financed TV commeercials.

jordanrichard | 07/07/2015

It was a rhetorical question. The answer is, something natural, meaning not man made, caused the planet to get warmer for however long it took for the ice to retreat to where it is now.

I am not a scientist, nor do I know enough to state flat out what I think is the amount of damage we as a specie have contributed to the current condition of the atmosphere. I am just say that we are not the sole cause because there is historical proof that there was an ice age and that it ended. The only way for ice to disappear is for it to get warmer. So I think it is only fair to consider that perhaps part of the warming would have happened anyways because it has happened in the past, a "couple days" before we came along.

science-isbetter | 07/07/2015

Thanks to bb0tin. +1 or whatever else I have to do to acknowledge your comments and work.

I started commenting here because I wanted to learn about what scientific basis those who denied man-made climate change had.

I asked questions and received responses but very few of those from doubters (I won't call them deniers), if any, held water. Lots of hand waving and buzz words that simply don't work with serious investigators. I received a lot of statements with no backup; no links to peer reviewed material; just statements that had been refuted. Sometimes, my questions were simply ignored.

You (bb0tin) point to real work; even to those where there is some controversy. Skeptical Science is excellent. There is some controversy there but when there is, the controversy is answered with facts.

MitchP85D | 07/07/2015

Well, that's just it Grinnin'! Not all scientists are in agreement on what causes Global Warming. At least Dr. Roy Spencer can admit that we absolutely have no idea whether Man causes 10% of Global Warming or 90%. At this point in time, it is impossible to quantify it.

In meteorology textbooks, the sun is just basic Meteorology 101 when it comes to what drives weather and climate. This is why meteorologists are your biggest skeptics of AGW theory!

grega | 07/07/2015

You're misrepresenting the debate. Yes climate change is partly man made and partly the natural cycles of our planet. And the exact degree is not possible to quantify. But it's almost unanimous that the man-made component is significant and dangerous.

Of course we're talking an incredibly high probability of problems, we're not talking about definites in the true sense of the word. But that's semantics, the problems are happening and increasing. What's not sure is exactly how bad it'll be because the planet absorbs some changes to a huge degree, and on the other hand can hit a tipping point that brings dramatic unstoppable change too... and we simply can't measure or predict the huge number of variables and the full effect of them changing.

So to say "at least he can admit that we have no idea whether..." is misleading. We have no idea of the exact mix - but we have plenty of an idea that we're doing lots of damage with dangerous consequences. And I do agree that solar and planetary changes and shifts could kill us some random time in our future even without our damage... but we're really helping to raise that risk!

bb0tin | 07/07/2015

Thanks for that. I will keep battling on...

bb0tin | 07/07/2015

You said "At least Dr. Roy Spencer can admit that we absolutely have no idea whether Man causes 10% of Global Warming or 90%. At this point in time, it is impossible to quantify it."
Would you please supply some evidence for this statement please.
Here is a link showing that your statement is false.

Grinnin'.VA | 08/07/2015

@ bb0tin | July 7, 2015

You said "At least Dr. Roy Spencer can admit that we absolutely have no idea whether Man causes 10% of Global Warming or 90%. At this point in time, it is impossible to quantify it."
Would you please supply some evidence for this statement please.

My magic crystal ball tells me that you're going to get ONLY flim-flam because that's all he has to offer.

Brian H | 08/07/2015

The only real-world costs of Global Warming to date are the inflated power costs imposed by the debasement of the generating grid imposed by the Believers. The poor pay.

rxlawdude | 08/07/2015

@Brian H: My guess is the poor are not your concern.

bb0tin | 08/07/2015

Once again you spam this thread with your unsupported opinion. Why do you think everyone should know your opinion? It is worthless without supporting evidence.

MitchP85D | 08/07/2015

Hey bb0tin, your link proves nothing! You are basing your whole belief system on model projections that are not panning out! And a web site that is run by nothing but the kool-aid drinkers!

bb0tin | 08/07/2015

Would you explain why you think I am "basing your whole belief system on model projections". Do you think the actual measured CO2 concentrations and temperatures are models? They are measurements of reality i.e. the current and the past.

A gunman walks into a room of 100 people and starts shooting. Within a few minutes 30 people are dead.
The scientist says "He has shot and killed 30 people, is still shooting, so we expect more to die, and if he doesn't stop shooting then everyone will be shot dead."
The denier says "They aren't dead, or they would have died anyway, or people have been shot in the past, or they all died of heart attacks, or you are just modelling that more people will die, or you are corrupt and on a gravy train, ..."

Grinnin'.VA | 08/07/2015

@ bb0tin | July 8, 2015


Do you think the actual measured CO2 concentrations and temperatures are models? They are measurements of reality i.e. the current and the past.

His posts are a bit lame, lacking in logic.

MitchP85D | 08/07/2015

Mr. Grinnin' sir, and goofus-doofus bb0tin

Here is Dr. Roy Spencer's statement: 1:30 into the video

Believe me now?

cweber | 08/07/2015


No reason to consider your question as rhetorical. In fact, the earth is still in an "ice age" that began 2.6 million years ago known at the beginning of the Pleistocene. We know we're still in this ice age because of the arctic and Antartic ice sheets exist. More specifically, we're experiencing an interglacial warm period known as the Holocene epoch that started about 12,000 years ago. Ice ages are characterized by individual "shorter" periods of warm and cold (lots of glaciation during cold spells, glacial retreat during warmer spells).

Hopefully you recognize the significance of these time periods. Ice ages occur over millions of years. Glacial and interglacial periods occur over 10's of thousands of years. Life forms thus have reasonable opportunity to adapt (or perish). The current hydrocarbon induced warming is happening over the course of a few decades. For many (most?) living things - the pace of adaptation that will be required under the current unprecedented warming rate is unfortunately not feasible.

DonS | 08/07/2015

FACT: We burn fossil fuels which adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
THEORY: We may be warming the earth.

FACT: A thousand years ago the earth was so much warmer that Greenland was actually green much of the year.
THEORY: If the earth gets two degrees warmer, it may be a complete catastrophe.

It is worth studying, but there is a failure to connect to burning fossil fuels to complete catastrophe. The unknown interactions still exceed what is known.

Grinnin'.VA | 08/07/2015

@ rmitchell108 | July 8, 2015

Mr. Grinnin' sir, and goofus-doofus bb0tin

Believe me now?


@DonS | July 8, 2015 new

FACT: We burn fossil fuels which adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
THEORY: We may be warming the earth.

THEORY confirmed by temperature measurements, etc.
BTW, the confirmation gets stronger every year, yet many prefer fairy tales instead.

You pretend to understand climate changes better than the climate scientists do!
Amazing brilliant or amazingly wrong. I prefer to trust the climate scientists.

MitchP85D | 08/07/2015

You want to know why AGW worshipers hate Dr. Richard Lindzen? Check 12:50 into this video. He demonstrates what climate models project vs. what is actually observed. The truth irritates the kool-aid drinkers!

MitchP85D | 08/07/2015

Most of you will be bored. But if you truly want to learn anything about climate models and climate change, you will watch this.

Sin_Gas | 08/07/2015


So lets say that in the worst case, there is no global warming issue.

The simple fact remains that the Tesla S is a better car and even if we are not saving the environment, its a better way to go, and I would enjoy the better mouse trap that Elon has created.


bb0tin | 08/07/2015

You have now resorted to posting links to videos of your favourite deniers. Why do you think this is scientific evidence and worth any kind of debate? I will not bother since there is nothing to debate.
How about I post a link to someone on a soapbox in times square proclaiming the rapture is coming this year. It seems that would be proof enough for you.

MitchP85D | 08/07/2015

Sin_Gas, I concur!!!

MitchP85D | 08/07/2015

Hey bb0tin, I know you hate Lindzen, but what about Hadi Dowlatabadi of British Columbia? You throw him onto the times square soapbox as well? Maybe because he even dared to appear on the same program with Lindzen?

I am biased towards Lindzen because he is the only Internationally known climate expert I've met in person. I talked to him at length about the contrasting years of 2007 and 2008 in the Arctic. I'll never forget how he anticipated what I was going to report to him once I told him that I forecast marine weather conditions in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in those years.

bb0tin, maybe you would have respected Hadi Dowlatabadi more if he had walked off the set like Gavin Schmidt did when he had the opportunity to sit next to Roy Spencer and debate him!

MitchP85D | 09/07/2015

So Grinnin', you don't believe Roy Spencer made the comment that we don't know if Man causes 10% or 90% of global warming?

bb0tin | 09/07/2015

You said "I know you hate Lindzen"
Really? I did not know that I did. But since it is your opinion, am I supposed to believe it?

You said "You throw him onto the times square soapbox as well"
You missed my point entirely. My point is that a video of someone saying something is no different than an opinion in writing. Without supporting evidence it is worthless in determining what is true or false.

You said “maybe you would have respected Hadi Dowlatabadi more”
I do not even know who he is. Where did you get the idea that I did?

You said “if he had walked off the set like Gavin Schmidt did when he had the opportunity to sit next to Roy Spencer and debate him!”.
Gavin Schmidt agreed to appear on the show as long as he did not have to debate Spencer. Of course he would not then stay and debate him.

In summary, you are making up (incorrect) stuff about myself, which you have also done in the past. Do you ever feel any shame or embarrassment when you do this?

Red Sage ca us | 09/07/2015

If the industrial actions of mankind are even 1% responsible, on a cumulative annual basis, to changes in global climate, the affect grows exponentially within decades and cannot be sustained without eventual, severe consequences.

MitchP85D | 09/07/2015

So Red, tell me. Which is better? Burning fossil fuels or cutting down trees and burning wood?

rxlawdude | 09/07/2015

@rmitchell: Like most deniers, you create a straw man that is absurd.

MitchP85D | 09/07/2015

Hey lawdude, you don't think wood-burning is an issue in the Third World? You don't think that effects the environment? Pull your head out!

SamO | 09/07/2015

We have shown you so many times, that there are more than two false choices between burning oil and wood.

Warren Buffet just agreed to purchase solar for $0.04/kWh, cheaper than anything other than a few hydro resources.

"Berkshire Hathaway's NV Energy strikes PPA price of 3.87 cents per kWh for electricity generated by First Solar's 100 MW Playa Solar 2 project, according to Bloomberg."

First Solar’s Steven Krum said that the contracts demonstrate how utility-scale solar power plants in the U.S. are becoming cheaper to build and operate, while SunPower CEO Tom Werner wrote in an emailed statement to Bloomberg: "Power generated from solar plants is cost-competitive with power from traditional fossil fuel burning plants, and becoming more cost-competitive every day."

Why do you keep pretending that it's either burn everything or live like neanderthals?

science-isbetter | 09/07/2015


Nice battling!


@rmitchell108 maybe wood burning contributes to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It't just that you created a false dichotomy. Whether fossil fuels contributes to AGW and if reducing that is a good idea is not an "either or" with respect to wood burning in the Third World.

Grinnin'.VA | 09/07/2015

@ rmitchell108 | July 8, 2015

... Lindzen ... he is the only Internationally known climate expert I've met in person.

1. You've told us that before.

2. So what?

@rmitchell108 | July 9, 2015

So Grinnin', you don't believe Roy Spencer made the comment that we don't know if Man causes 10% or 90% of global warming?

I have no idea and no interest in what Roy Spencer, whoever he his, said.
I don't even know whether he is a 'denier' or an over-the-top promoter of whatever his favorite political initiatives are.
UNLESS he has a science-based explanation of his comment.

science-isbetter | 09/07/2015

Typo: It't s/b It's

science-isbetter | 09/07/2015



Red Sage ca us | 09/07/2015

rmitchell108: Depends. Let me know when you can plant and grow more coal and crude oil. Then we can decide on even ground.

grega | 09/07/2015

The Australian prime minister is trying to classify the burning of old, existing forests as renewable. That's not a good idea. But I'm realising that there is worthy debate about bio-diesel, or planted forest burning and so forth, as they each require an investment to create the energy-imbued fuel (removing atmospheric CO2) before burning it (creating atmospheric CO2).

Similarly I suspect that a CNG/methane fuel-cell car would be much more efficient than a methane burning car, and have similar overall emissions to a methane-derived hydrogen fuel-cell car. But I feel that the option (like others have said with hybrids) would slow down the transition to carbon-neutral for other reasons.

Mel. | 09/07/2015

When you claim to be an expert on global warming, it would be helpful to give your educational or professional background.
How about at the beginning of your post give us your credentials.
I am sure you know that would help those of us that are in the peanut gallery.

cweber | 09/07/2015


From the perspective of putting CO2 in the atmosphere thus facilitating global warming - it is FAR better to burn wood than to burn oil, gas, and coal. All of the flora and fauna in the world is accounted for in a balanced, steady state carbon cycle. It doesn't matter if the carbon is atomospheric CO2, or cellulose, or cellulite. Plants have always lived and died and the carbon just changes hosts. Atmospheric CO2 averaged about 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years prior to the industrial age. This despite lots of continuous natural and big forest fires around the globe. Atmospheric CO2 is at nearly 400 ppm today. The reason is we're extracting and burning sources of carbon that have been locked away thousands of feet underground for millions of years. For the time scales relevant to humans - those very large underground carbon sinks have been excluded from the natural, established steady-state carbon cycle. But, thanks to man's ingenuity and some might say ignorance, the steady-state carbon cycle is no longer so steady.

Note: The burning of wood does have other negative environmental impacts of course - particulate emissions, destruction of habitat, threats to species diversity, increased erosion, etc. Its just not a CO2 issue.

rxlawdude | 09/07/2015

@cweber. +1. But it will fall on deaf and dumb ears.

MitchP85D | 16/07/2015

cweber - you think burning wood is better than fossil fuels? Have you ever thought about the trees that were cut down are no longer taking CO2 out of the atmosphere? Maybe that one slipped your mind.

Red Sage - your comment was silly too. Because coal and crude oil don't take CO2 out of the air. Trees do!

Red Sage ca us | 19/07/2015

Most species of trees, and even entire forests, will grow to maturity far sooner than new deposits of coal will be formed, and it doesn't seem as if anything reforms naturally as petroleum in less than a few million years.

FREE ENERGY | 19/07/2015

From 01:40

Oil is NOT a Fossil Fuel. It is an Abiotic - Meaning a Self Regenerating Compound!

Grinnin'.VA | 19/07/2015

@ Ø | July 19, 2015

>>> Oil is NOT a Fossil Fuel.

Why does this matter?

Burning oil adds CO2 to the atmosphere.
Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere trap heat, causing temperatures to rise.
Consequently, burning oil causes AGW.

A strong consensus of qualified climate science researchers believe this AGW 'theory'. What evidence do you have that they are wrong?

MitchP85D | 19/07/2015

Mr. Grinnin sir, nobody is disputing the increasing CO2 levels. The dispute is over how much of an effect it will have. The evidence is mounting that the predicted effects are exaggerated.