Svensmark is Right; Experiment Shows Cosmic Rays Create Clouds
Timothy Birdnow
Cosmic rays can indeed increase cloud cover and reduce planetary temperatures, according to new research at Aarhus University and the National Space Institute.
http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/
From the article:
"With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models."
End excerpt.
As anyone who has followed the Global Warming debate knows, Heinrick Svensmark theorized that the warming observed in the latter half of the 20th century was driven by an active solar period; the solar wind was strong, sweeping cosmic rays away from the Earth. In a period of low solar activity those rays would contribute to cloud formation, and these clouds would reflect sunlight, cooling the planet. The sun just finished a Grand Solar Maximum http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/700/2/937%20, and has moved into a very quiet period.
We now have evidence that Svensmark was right.
Calculations on solar forcing suggest that solar energy output is inadequate to explain the temperature rise of the 20th century, and greenhouse forcing is used to explain the difference. Using satellites, Nasa calculated Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) although that has been revised down to 1361 W/m2 (perhaps because of the ending of the Grand Maximum?)
Between 1910 and 1940 there was an increase in TSI from 1365.5 to 1366 Wm-2
But much of the warming has occured in the latter half of the century, and the increase in irradiation cannot account for it. There is to be expected a lag time as the great mass of the planet slowly warms.
Svensmark's theory suggests that the sun can affect planetary temperatures in ways other than through direct solar forcing. Cosmic rays, he thinks, can drive the formation of clouds, and a strong solar wind can cause a dearth of them; the planet is cooler when clouds are heavy and warmer when they are absent. We are using a baseline that assumes the planetary albedo (reflectivity) remains constant, and Svensmark argues that is not the case. A lower planetary albedo means a warmer world.
By the way, the Russians are predicting a deep minimum for the TSI around 2055 and a cold period as a result.
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov.html
At any rate, Svensmark's theory about cosmic rays have no been validated in the lab. What other forcings are we missing? The Earth's magnetic field is tethered to the Suns, and it ebbs and flows as a result of internal activity in the Sun. Does that affect planetary temperature? What about micro meteor bombardments as the Earth moves through cluttered sections of space?
There is an awful lot we do not know, and a lot that is not in those dandy computer models. I discussed a good deal of this at American Thinker a while back.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/the_thunder_and_the_firecracke.html
The problem with models is that they have limited variables input, and so much of what we are learning is not input. Imagine if you will a model train set with no wheels; it won't move, and someone who doesn't know what a train is would conclude that they are stationary objects. One small change can make a huge difference.
But, then, an even greater difference can be made if the model maker is purposefully leaving things out, or purposely adding them. We know this has been happening; "hide the decline" from the CRU e-mail scandal shows that at least some scientists have been actively trying to distort the models.
But the Truth will out. Let's hope.
Cosmic rays can indeed increase cloud cover and reduce planetary temperatures, according to new research at Aarhus University and the National Space Institute.
http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/
From the article:
"With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models."
End excerpt.
As anyone who has followed the Global Warming debate knows, Heinrick Svensmark theorized that the warming observed in the latter half of the 20th century was driven by an active solar period; the solar wind was strong, sweeping cosmic rays away from the Earth. In a period of low solar activity those rays would contribute to cloud formation, and these clouds would reflect sunlight, cooling the planet. The sun just finished a Grand Solar Maximum http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/700/2/937%20, and has moved into a very quiet period.
We now have evidence that Svensmark was right.
Calculations on solar forcing suggest that solar energy output is inadequate to explain the temperature rise of the 20th century, and greenhouse forcing is used to explain the difference. Using satellites, Nasa calculated Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) although that has been revised down to 1361 W/m2 (perhaps because of the ending of the Grand Maximum?)
Between 1910 and 1940 there was an increase in TSI from 1365.5 to 1366 Wm-2
But much of the warming has occured in the latter half of the century, and the increase in irradiation cannot account for it. There is to be expected a lag time as the great mass of the planet slowly warms.
Svensmark's theory suggests that the sun can affect planetary temperatures in ways other than through direct solar forcing. Cosmic rays, he thinks, can drive the formation of clouds, and a strong solar wind can cause a dearth of them; the planet is cooler when clouds are heavy and warmer when they are absent. We are using a baseline that assumes the planetary albedo (reflectivity) remains constant, and Svensmark argues that is not the case. A lower planetary albedo means a warmer world.
By the way, the Russians are predicting a deep minimum for the TSI around 2055 and a cold period as a result.
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov.html
At any rate, Svensmark's theory about cosmic rays have no been validated in the lab. What other forcings are we missing? The Earth's magnetic field is tethered to the Suns, and it ebbs and flows as a result of internal activity in the Sun. Does that affect planetary temperature? What about micro meteor bombardments as the Earth moves through cluttered sections of space?
There is an awful lot we do not know, and a lot that is not in those dandy computer models. I discussed a good deal of this at American Thinker a while back.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/the_thunder_and_the_firecracke.html
The problem with models is that they have limited variables input, and so much of what we are learning is not input. Imagine if you will a model train set with no wheels; it won't move, and someone who doesn't know what a train is would conclude that they are stationary objects. One small change can make a huge difference.
But, then, an even greater difference can be made if the model maker is purposefully leaving things out, or purposely adding them. We know this has been happening; "hide the decline" from the CRU e-mail scandal shows that at least some scientists have been actively trying to distort the models.
But the Truth will out. Let's hope.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 9:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home