So much for the rock-solid consensus on the accuracy of Global Climate Models. Oops.
CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised. . . .
Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):
"[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.
The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.
Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.
Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.
When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested 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."
To the points I made earlier in this thread. Climate Modeling is not science. We understand quite well some of, in fact, most of the isolated processes, but how they all interact is a HUGELY complex affair.
Having climate scientists advocating for public policy is what has tainted their reputation (notwithstanding their trying to pass off modeling as science) - they've traded on their authority by telling the public that the science is settled. Ooops. Not really.
To the last bolded statement - if we're going to play a game of which expert to listen to, it behooves us to note that the expert who is correct in his statement on a matter should have more authority than an expert who is incorrect on a matter. Further experimentation will give us more information, but the point still stands - the science is not settled and if climate models were indeed science, then this report has just falsified an entire body of work. Now that's impressive science.