Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Chilling Stars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Chilling Stars





    Researcher: Cosmic rays cause warming

    COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Feb. 11 (UPI) -- Danish researchers claim that much of the Earth's global warming may be caused by fluctuations in cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

    Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Center, told The Sunday Telegraph in London that human activity may have less to do with global warming than previously thought. His team's research on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover came out a week after the U.N. Panel on Climate Change released a report that said human carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for much of global warming.

    But Svensmark said the U.N. panel's research didn't really take the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover into account. He said the impact on human activity on climate change may be much smaller than the panel predicted.

    "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds," Svensmark told the Sunday Telegraph.


    An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

    Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

    >
    He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

    The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

    In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

    Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

    Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
    >


    Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

    Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

    In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
    >
    A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

    They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

    Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

    Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

    Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

    He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

    "Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

    Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

    Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

    Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

    But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

    Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

    He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds."
    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 11 February 2007, 19:06.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Remember Clark's first law?

    When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
    it's easilly apliable to this also
    If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

    Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

    Comment


    • #3
      Not just "a" scientist; work has been done on this by a wide group of people, including one at the Max Planck Institute. The problem is in getting the GW climatologists to listen to the astrophysicists
      Dr. Mordrid
      ----------------------------
      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
        ... The problem is in getting the GW climatologists to listen to the astrophysicists
        Is there some way in which this being a real effect would change whether human caused GW is a real effect too?


        Interesting idea though, a planetary sized cloud chamber
        Chuck
        秋音的爸爸

        Comment


        • #5
          The articles I've read put the relative effects at ~85% solar activity/cosmic ray/cloud moderated and ~15% CO2/methane related, and humans can only control a fraction of those.

          Basic effects:

          as solar activity goes up solar magnetic fields increase. This deflects cosmic rays, which are mostly charged particles, reducing clouds (which reflect solar radiation) and warming the Earth. The increased solar radiation enhances the effect.

          as solar activity goes down solar magnetics also go down. This allows more cosmic rays to reach Earth, increasing clouds. This reflects solar radiation and cools the Earth. Of course reduced solar radiation enhances this.

          The cosmic ray flux is variable too, adding bit of unpredictability to the calculus. Some of this has recently been traced to the Milky Ways central supermassive black hole (3.7 million solar masses) which is acting like a galactic synchrotron.

          This is actually not that new; groups from all over have been hopping up & down over this since at least 1998. It's just hard to pierce the 'conventional wisdom'.
          Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 12 February 2007, 09:06.
          Dr. Mordrid
          ----------------------------
          An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

          I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

          Comment


          • #6
            I pronounce you a member of ABGW (Anything But Global Warming)

            Sister organization of ABE (Anything But Evolution)


            There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's ...


            There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).
            Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.
            The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth's temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.


            Chuck
            秋音的爸爸

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
              Not just "a" scientist; work has been done on this by a wide group of people, including one at the Max Planck Institute. The problem is in getting the GW climatologists to listen to the astrophysicists
              It was they I referred to
              If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

              Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cjolley View Post
                I pronounce you a member of ABGW (Anything But Global Warming)

                Sister organization of ABE (Anything But Evolution)
                From your own quote;

                The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate.
                >
                Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.
                Indeed the jury is still out, but you'll have to admit that the GW crowd are IN DENIAL THEMSELVES about that fact. If they had their way the research would never be done, both for "grant machine" and political reasons plus no one likes admitting their "full answer" wasn't after the expenditure of so much hot air.

                They'd prefer to frame the argument with the Earth-sun environmental relationship being a closed system. It isn't. It's the oldest debate trick in the book; call your opponent "out of the mainstream" then declare victory, common sense be damned.

                If these other mechanisms are indeed proven to be important then I guess the best we can hope for is what happened with the early 20th century eugenicists; they'll slither to cover and wait for another round, probably a repeat of "global cooling"
                Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 12 February 2007, 10:39.
                Dr. Mordrid
                ----------------------------
                An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
                  ...
                  If these other mechanisms are indeed proven to be important then I guess the best we can hope for is what happened with the early 20th century eugenicists; they'll slither to cover and wait for another round, probably a repeat of "global cooling"
                  I didn't deny that the cosmic ray induced cloud formation wasn't real and didn't have an affect on climate.

                  Just showing that other things can have an affect on climate is NOT the same thing as showing that human induced global warming isn't taking place. Why does that empty headed argument style have so much appeal for people?

                  What's happening to the atmosphere now isn't the same as what happened 100 years ago.
                  And just hoping it will go away isn't much of an answer to anything.


                  PS I admit that if something really bad results from variations in cosmic ray activity then hoping it just goes away may be about all we have
                  Chuck
                  秋音的爸爸

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cjolley View Post
                    What's happening to the atmosphere now isn't the same as what happened 100 years ago. And just hoping it will go away isn't much of an answer to anything.
                    And what was happening 100 years before 1900 wasn't the same as then, ad infinitum. Pick your point in the cycle and about every 2-3 generations you could make a case for cooling or warming.

                    Before the 70's cooling craze there was the 30's "great American heat wave" (>20,000 died from heat just in 1936) and droughts. This was relieved by strong storms in the 40's and a 20+ year cooling off period after that. Pick your continent and you'll see similar cycles.

                    Today we wring our hands over ice sheets melting in Greenland while Antarctica, many times larger, is adding ice and has been getting colder for >60 years. Does the media report that point? Of course not, it doesn't fit the existing theology. Do they report that 1,000 years ago the Greenland sheets were also melting, which is what drew the Vikings to settle there? Not directly, and man made CO2 sure wasn't at fault.

                    Then there's this about Greenland....

                    Two of Greenland's largest glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005. And then, less than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.
                    >
                    “All this in a matter of a few short years for these two glaciers is not the way glaciologists are used to thinking,” Howat says. “We’re used to thinking of the ice sheets in terms of millennia or centuries.”
                    Gee....guess they have something new to think about

                    Of course hoping won't make it go away. Neither will tooling around with things out of our control.
                    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 12 February 2007, 19:13.
                    Dr. Mordrid
                    ----------------------------
                    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, maybe those climatologist morons will eventually figure out that they need to stop studying data and start studying the popular press if they want to find out how climate works
                      Chuck
                      秋音的爸爸

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think to a degree, they already are. They are having their "Rockstar" moment...
                        Hey, Donny! We got us a German who wants to die for his country... Oblige him. - Lt. Aldo Raine

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cjolley View Post
                          Well, maybe those climatologist morons will eventually figure out that they need to stop studying data and start studying the popular press if they want to find out how climate works
                          Not the popular press. Just a few journals the science press and others are reading and they aren't, or they are but dismiss offhand without real consideration.
                          Dr. Mordrid
                          ----------------------------
                          An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                          I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X