FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Global Warming Scam Latest
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 56, 57, 58  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Houston... we HAVE a Sunspot!

Yes, it's just one spot, but it does end the longest spotless
run of days in modern times. The jury is still out on whether
we will see a big decline in spots on this cycle or not. But it's
a good guess that the huge pause in spot activity means this
cycle will be anomalous: either an escalation in activity as the
Sun plays catch-up... or a particularly weak cycle.

Quote:
Sunspot emerges on sun

23 Sep 2008

A significant sunspot, a fast-growing active region with two
dark cores, each larger than Earth, is emerging on the sun.


The magnetic polarity of the sunspot identified it as a member
of new Sunspot Cycle 24.....


_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ulysses spacecraft data indicate Solar System shield lowering

Quote:
23 September 2008
Data from the joint ESA/NASA Ulysses mission show that the Sun has reduced its output of solar wind to the lowest levels since accurate readings have become available. This current state of the Sun could reduce the natural shielding that envelops our Solar System.

"The Sun’s 1.5 million km-per-hour solar wind inflates a protective bubble around the Solar System and can influence how things work here on Earth and even out at the boundary of our Solar System, where it meets the galaxy," said Dave McComas, Principal Investigator for the Ulysses solar wind instrument and senior Executive Director at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "Ulysses data indicate the solar wind’s global pressure is the lowest we have seen since the beginning of the space age."


http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMR9MQ4KKF_index_0.html[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SOLAR WIND FADES, SUNSPOTS DISAPPEAR, EARTH COOLS

Truth is very powerful. It can be avoided or manipulated for a while, but eventually truth will out!

The debate over global climate change is exposing truths to solar and
particle physicists, astronomers, and the public in the same way that
the housing loan crisis is now exposing basic truths to economists,
politicians, and the public.

NASA was remarkable candid yesterday in finally admitting some of the ways that the stormy Sun influences planet Earth in "Ulysses Reveals Global Solar Wind Plasma Output at 50-Year Low" [NASA, 23 September 2008]

http://www.nasa. gov/home/ hqnews/2008/ sep/HQ_08241_ Ulysses.html

The Solar Wind is mostly H+ ions produced by a.) Neutron-emission from the solar core, followed by b.) Neutron-decay:

a.) Neutron-emission: <n> ~> n

b.) Neutron-decay: n ~> H+ + e- + anti-neutrino

These reactions usually produce about 65% of solar luminosity [1].

The H+ ions are accelerated upward by deep-seated magnetic fields.
This upward flow of H+ ions maintains mass-separation in the Sun and a
surface coating of lightweight elements, 91% H and 9% He [1].

Most H+ ions are consumed by fusion on this upward journey, generating about 35% of solar luminosity and all observed solar neutrinos [1].

The H+ ions that survive then depart as the solar wind [1].

Deep-seated magnetic fields often penetrate the solar surface as magnetic storms, sunspots, and solar eruptions. These are rare since the end of solar cycle #23, so the fading solar wind is not surprising.

Four years ago researchers at UC-Berkeley reported that stars with low sunspot activity have low abundances of lightweight elements at their surfaces, i.e., they have high surface abundances of heavy elements like iron and nickel:

http://www.berkeley .edu/news/ media/releases/ 2004/06/01_ maunder.shtml

As solar cycle #23 was fading, Socas-Navarro and Norton reported unusually low [O]/[Fe] ratios at the solar surface last year.

http://www.journals .uchicago. edu/doi/abs/ 10.1086/518389

Since H+ ions maintain mass separation in the Sun, ratios of lightweight to
heavy isotopes and elements at the solar surface are generally expected to be unusually low as the solar wind fades.

Solar-wind-implanted elements contain a record of variations in mass
fractionation as the Sun passes through successive solar cycles,

Correlated mass-fractionation of neon and xenon isotopes were reported
in 1970 ["Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in neon and
xenon," Nature 227, 1113-1116 (1970); doi:10.1038/ 2271113a0]

http://www.nature. com/nature/ journal/v227/ n5263/abs/ 2271113a0. html

Correlated mass-fractionation of krypton and xenon isotopes were
reported in solar-wind implanted gases in lunar soil #15601.64 in 1972 [Third Lunar Science Conference, vol. 2 (1972) 1927-1945].

http://www.omatumr. com/Data/ 1972Data1. htm

NASA will probably continue to avoid making measurements that would further discredit the standard solar model of an H-filled Sun heated by Hydrogen-fusion, but eventually truth will out!

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

Emeritus Professor

Space & Nuclear Studies

http://www.omatumr. com

REFERENCE:

1. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pp. 1847-1856].

http://arxiv. org/pdf/astro- ph/0609509v3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the best argument summaries going
around, and it's up to date as of Sept 2008.


Quote:
Fraud of Global Warming

by Floy Lilley - September 27, 2008

The former U.S. vice president, Al Gore, is now urging civil disobedience to stop coal plants. He told a New York audience recently, "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

Global Warming and Reinventing Government have been Gore’s two lifelong causes. He is using the one to accomplish the other. His fundamental assumptions and views of global warming were well documented in his film, An Inconvenient Truth. Thousands of schoolchildren have viewed it. Gore was even awarded a Nobel Peace prize for the documentary in 2007 which he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is telling that the very first Chairman of that IPCC group, John Houghton, had pronounced, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." True to script, Gore announced disasters and many listened.

As Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants for the sake of carbon dioxide emissions, it is time to revisit several of those assumptions and implications he made in An Inconvenient Truth. Each of the fourteen highlighted here is a snapshot of the Global Warming doomsayers’ views. The added perspective shows the fraud of the catastrophic manmade

Global Warming thesis:

Carbon dioxide drives the temperature of the planet. Gore assumes that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the causal factor of warming temperatures. But, for at least 240,000 years carbon dioxide has been a lagging indicator of any warming. That means that the earth warms and, later, there is an increase in the gas carbon dioxide. Roy Spencer, Climate Research Scientist in Huntsville, Alabama, notes that "the cooling effects of weather have a stronger influence on surface temperatures than the warming influence of greenhouse gases." The major greenhouse gases are water vapor (which accounts for 70–90 percent of the effect), carbon dioxide and methane. Many scientists work on the theory that the sun is the prime driver of Earth’s climate. Earth temperature and sun activity do correlate closely. Additionally, many scientists examine the larger cosmos. Their theories reveal an interplay between the sun and cosmic rays – sub-atomic particles from exploded stars. Further, they discern long-term temperature patterns as our solar system moves through the arms of our Milky Way galaxy. Again, those events correlate more closely to Earth’s temperatures than do manmade carbon dioxide levels.

Temperatures will rise 1.5–4.5 degrees Celsius when CO2 levels double from a pre-industrial level of 280ppm to 560ppm. Because Earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide changes has been overstated, the scientifically likely temperature result of such a doubling is 1.5–2.0 degrees Celsius. Earth’s current CO2 level is 380ppm.

Catastrophic Global Warming will cause sea levels to rise 20 feet. The work of scientists supports a sea level rise of about one inch per decade. In one hundred years it should rise 10–12 inches.

Catastrophic Global Warming is forcing island nations to evacuate their populations to New Zealand because of rising sea levels. Tuvalu was the poster child for this alarm, but neither Tuvalu nor any other islanders have evacuated to New Zealand.

Catastrophic Global Warming is melting Antarctic sea ice. But, Antarctic sea ice is thickening over the gigantic continent. This thickening reduces sea level. There is ice loss on a tiny sliver of the continent stretching out far northward. That is what Gore’s movie image relies upon. The ice shelf collapse there was more likely to have been driven by ocean current fluctuations.

Catastrophic Global Warming is resulting in extreme weather. Tornadoes? The US is home to one-third of all the world’s tornadoes. But, tornadoes have not increased. Drought? There is not greater incidence of drought. Record typhoons and cyclones? No. Hurricanes? There are about ninety-five hurricanes annually and globally. But, hurricanes are neither more frequent nor more intense. In 2004 the IPCC hyped hurricane-fears without any scientific soundness. Gore’s film footage implies that hurricane Katrina was an inescapable consequence of manmade globally averaged warming. Facts do not support that alarm.

Catastrophic Global Warming has caused global temperatures to be warmer now than they have been in 1,000 years. Gore’s graph displays a long level period ending in an upward sweep like a hockey stick, displaying the appearance of runaway temperatures. A young IPCC scientist named Mann created this hockey stick graph for a 2001 report, making the real Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear. It was an enormously effective prop. Alarmists used it for their the-science-is-settled position. It made the 20th-century temperature increase look unique. But, Mann’s methodology would have conjured any random set of numbers into a hockey stick. And, the temperature increase was not unique. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating that this graph used flawed data. The IPCC has dropped the use of the Mann hockey stick from its 2007 Report. But, this piece of deliberate disinformation caused great damage to truth and science.

Catastrophic Global Warming has dried up Lake Chad. Lake Chad has been totally dry several times before humans were adding any CO2. That situation is due to over-extraction by communities.

Catastrophic Global Warming has been shrinking the snows of Kilimanjaro. By the time Ernest Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936, half of the snow was already gone. This is before man began releasing CO2 into the atmosphere to any extent by burning fuels for energy. No temperature on the mountain is above freezing. There has been no temperature change in fifty-five years. Shrinking is likely to be a circulation issue and lower precipitation, not a rising temperature issue.

Catastrophic Global Warming increases mosquito-borne malaria. Malaria was endemic to most of the developed world just fifty to one hundred years ago. We eliminated malaria in Europe and the United States while the world warmed. 600,000 people died of malaria in Siberia. Malaria sickens 300 to 500 million poor people annually, killing as many as 2.7 million each year. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in 20 children dies of malaria. The approximately forty million humans killed by malaria since 1972 have died because a politician, William Ruckelshaus, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s first head, banned the beneficial pesticide DDT.

Catastrophic Global Warming is quickly melting Arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice decreases during the summer melt season, and Arctic temperatures have risen faster than anywhere else. But, the Arctic region was warmer in the 1930’s. That could not have been caused by mankind. And, Artic sea ice has recovered from 3 million square kilometers to 14 million square kilometers. Ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska has more recently been at its highest level ever recorded.

Catastrophic Global Warming is killing polar bears. Factually, that claim was based on a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an "abrupt windstorm" in an area housing one of the increasing bear populations. Global polar-bear population has increased dramatically over the past decades.

Catastrophic Global Warming is melting Greenland’s ice. Greenland has been warmer. Its ice did not melt – except around its edges. There has been no net warming – and perhaps a slight cooling – since 1937. Vikings colonized and farmed Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period. The return of colder climate drove them away.

And, lastly, for An Inconvenient Truth,

Catastrophic Global Warming has caused mass extinctions. Warming extends ranges for plant and animal species. Biodiversity is enhanced. That’s why the greatest concentration of biodiversity is in the tropics. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are shown to increase plant production, while lowering water requirements and reducing stress. Animals thrive on more abundant plant-life. Enriched CO2 has yielded an additional one-sixth production which would not have happened in its absence.

Each of these fourteen scenarios would have been an environmental bad had it happened and had it been empirically proven to have been caused by humans. The alarming events did not happen. The scary scenarios all came from computer climate models. There has been no empirical proof substantiating Gore’s claims and implications.

The hypothesis of catastrophic globally averaged warming resulting from human-caused carbon dioxide increases has failed. Failed hypotheses should be rejected.



The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis fails to show that changes in carbon dioxide drive changes in temperature. Changes in carbon dioxide do not account well for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has had, including the Roman Warming (200 B.C. to A.D. 600), the cold Dark Ages (A.D. 440 to A.D. 900), the Medieval Warming (A.D. 900–1300 when CO2 levels were much lower than today), and the Little Ice Age (1300–1550 when there were few sunspots). The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis is a feeble theory made seemingly true by pure repetition.

The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis fails to explain the reality of the last one hundred years. Half of our modern warming occurred from 1905–1940, when carbon dioxide levels were still quite low. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degrees Celsius. An interlude of global cooling occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, when CO2 levels were increasing. It totally fails to explain the absence of warming in the last ten years, despite a continuing rapid increase in CO2 concentration. If greenhouse action by carbon dioxide drove warming, the upper air should have warmed faster than the surface, but observations show the opposite has been the case. Although computer models say temperatures should have risen, Alabama temperatures have fallen for 115 years. Citrus crops used to be common. What could you do about this catastrophe? Buy jackets and get out of the citrus business. In other words, adapt.

It is fraud to spread alarmism of catastrophic "human-caused global warming" based upon projections generated from computer climate models which have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable.

It is fraud upon fraud to throw scarce resources at Global Warming when such expenditures will have inconsequential results except to impoverish us, notwithstanding that Al Gore believes it will be good for our spirituality to work together on such a common cause. There are real and achievable global causes of diseases, malnutrition, sanitation and energy that are valid projects and worthy efforts – efforts that Bjørn Lomborg endorses in his book, Cool It. No global efforts toward expensive CO2 cuts are valid or worthy. Current Climate policies are health and wealth destruction policies.

Doomsayers are claiming that climate can be adjusted in some predictable way, but it can not. It is fraud to claim that it can. As published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. has conducted studies that thwart the greenhouse effect. What that means is that "just because the greenhouse effect is real, it does not follow that an increase in intensity will necessarily lead to a significant increase in mean global air temperature, as climate alarmists are wont to claim…Hence it is not inconceivable that an increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration may result in no warming at all. Or even a cooling!...Much more research will be required before we can determine that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content even constitutes a problem, much less specify its magnitude and prescribe ameliorative measures for dealing with it."

The magnetic attraction of government funding for global-warming research, the political climate of fear-based policies seen in both climate issues and economic issues, and doom-sopping journalism works to push events into a downward spiral of exaggeration and hype. Al Gore rides this emotional wave. He has refused all debate with climate scientists. It is after all, for him, not about truth. For him truth is simply inconvenient.

COOL It and Six Other Books to Lower Your Global Warming Fever

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjørn Lomborg (2008) tells us to stop the focus on carbon dioxide cuts. Stop throwing good resources at global treaties and global command and control plans. They will have inconsequential results upon climate. You will fail to do any real good, cautions Lomborg. Put global warming into perspective. There is useful common sense packed into this slender and readable work from this Danish environmentalist.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so by Lawrence Solomon (2008) checks to see if those who differ from the "consensus" claimed by Gore and the UN really are just crackpots. Surprising himself with his findings, Solomon's efforts revealed the skeptics to be more accomplished and more eminent scientists than the Gore & co. group who have gone along.

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor by Roy Spencer (2008) says that the policies being advocated by environmentalists and politicians in the frenzy over global warming are sure to fail and bound to harm people. Governmental funding for research has predictably created biased scientists, but Washington, too, has been corrupted by this hyped "problem" and the money being thrown at it. Spencer shows with a light touch that he knows people as well as he knows weather.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery (2008) presents the case of how the Earth tells its own climate tale. This reasoned perspective of natural climate change driven by our own sun refutes the alarmists' baseless fears of man-made global warming caused by increases in carbon dioxide. The authors argue for humane policy consequences.

The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder (2008) calls the carbon dioxide theory feeble and presents a far more robust theory of galactic cosmic rays. Based upon Svensmark's research at the Danish National Space Center, The Chilling Stars offers the broadest perspective yet presented on climate change. If confirmed by further research, sub-atomic particles from exploded stars affect Earth's climate more than man-made carbon dioxide.

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming edited by Patrick J. Michaels (2005) presents essays by climate experts which reveal what is and what is not known in climate science. Cautioning that bad policy will result from flawed scientific assumptions, each expert carefully notes what has been predicted and what has been observed. Major discrepancies raise major questions about any policy created to "fight" climate change.

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media by Patrick J. Michaels (2005) is a premier presentation of the cycle and culture of exaggeration. Never shy, Michaels does tell it like it is. What he reveals is not professional and is not pretty. Spencer's Climate Confusion echoes these same sad discoveries of scientific ignorance and fraud.

For websites on global warming, the two kings still reign:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://www.co2science.org/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy4.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even the NYT now has to make a tacit admission
that the lack of sunspots might be linked to cliamte
and might even be enough to counteract warming:

Quote:
Sunspots Are Fewest Since 1954, but Significance Is Unclear

NYTimes - By KENNETH CHANG - October 2, 2008

The Sun has been strangely unblemished this year. On more than 200 days so far this year, no sunspots were spotted. That makes the Sun blanker this year than in any year since 1954, when it was spotless for 241 days.

The Sun goes through a regular 11-year cycle, and it is now emerging from the quietest part of the cycle, or solar minimum. But even for this phase it has been unusually quiet, with little roiling of the magnetic fields that induce sunspots.

“It’s starting with a murmur,” said David H. Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

As of Thursday, the 276th day of the year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colo., had counted 205 days without a sunspot.

In another sign of solar quiescence, scientists reported last month that the solar wind, a rush of charged particles continually spewed from the Sun at a million miles an hour, had diminished to its lowest level in 50 years.

Scientists are not sure why this minimum has been especially minimal, and the episode is even playing into the global warming debate. Some wonder if this could be the start of an extended period of solar indolence that would more than offset the warming effect of human-made carbon dioxide emissions. From the middle of the 17th century to the early 18th, a period known as the Maunder Minimum, sunspots were extremely rare, and the reduced activity coincided with lower temperatures in what is known as the Little Ice Age.

Compared to the Maunder Minimum, the current pace of sunspots “makes it look like we’re having a feast, not a famine,” Dr. Hathaway said.

Scientists expect that sunspot activity will pick up in the coming months, but exactly what will happen next is open to debate. Dr. Hathaway had predicted two years ago, based on the Sun’s behavior near the end of the last cycle, that the maximum this time would be ferocious.

“I’m getting worried about that prediction now,” he said. “Normally, big cycles start early, and by doing that, they cut short the previous cycle. This one hasn’t done that.”

But many of the other competing predictions — more than 50 over all — pointed to a quieter-than-average cycle. “They do kind of go all over the map,” said Douglas Biesecker, a physicist at the Space Weather Prediction Center who led an international panel that reviewed predictions.

The solar wind is another piece of the puzzle. David J. McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio and one of the researchers who analyzed data from the Ulysses Sun-watching spacecraft, said that the strength of the solar wind seemed to be in a long-term decline. The pressure exerted by the solar wind particles during the current minimum is about a quarter weaker than during the last solar minimum, Dr. McComas said.

Dr. McComas said scientists were still trying to figure out how all the data fits together.

“There are a number of researchers who predict the next solar cycle,” he said. “There are also a number of investment counselors who predict the future of the stock market.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/science/space/03sun.html?ref=science

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cosmic Rays and the Variation in Cloud Cover - the Sun & the Clouds 1

Quote:
Ten years ago Dr Jasper Kirkby whilst working at CERN, postulated 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.

He proposed a research programme consisting of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists from 18 institutes around the world, including the California Institute of Technology and Germany's Max-Planck Institute.

Unfortunately he ran into intense opposition and 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.

It has taken 10 years for the project to be refunded as the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) laboratory experiment, which CERN believes will show the mechanisms through which the sun and cosmic rays can influence the formation of clouds and thus the climate. The CLOUD project will use a high-energy particle beam from an accelerator to closely duplicate cosmic rays found in the atmosphere.

But there are a large body of scientists around the world who have pointed to the influence on the climate of the sun and clouds. Those with closed minds like David Viner of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia have this to say about the science of cosmic ray cloud formation:

"... we can explain the temperature discrepancy between the surface and the low atmosphere without recourse to this proposal."

And of course it is this attitude that held back research into this area for years.


Figure 10: Solar activity (left panel), not CO2 levels (right panel), highly
correlate with Arctic temperature anomalies


Knowledge of the linkage between the sun and the clouds is not new. In the "Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England" (Pustilnik, 2003), we find a seemingly radical hypothesis dating from British astronomer William Herschel, who suggested a link between sunspots and wheat prices in 1801. He noticed an inverse correlation between the number of sunspots in the 11-year cycle and the price of grain on Earth. The more sunspots, the finer the weather, and the finer the weather the more the grain grows, and the more the grain grows the lower the price.


Figure 11: Svenmarks Cosmic Ray Interaction Diagram


It was resurrected in 1959 by US researcher Edward Ney, but it remained a hypothesis even though it could be supported by historical records and statistical associations but were not empirically demonstrated. However at the same time as Kirkby proposed his programme Henrik Svensmark and the team at the Danish National Space Center, commenced a programme to investigate the relationship between Clouds and Solar Winds.

Svensmark used a cloud chamber to determine the interaction between cosmic rays and clouds. He estimated that the indirect cloud effect in just 5 years was responsible for a 2% decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm-2 from incident radiation ‑ equivalent to some 85% of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolution.

Significantly, the "Svensmark Effect" only operates in the lower troposphere because there is always more than sufficient ionization of the upper atmosphere to ensure no shortage of cloud nuclei. This is important since high, thin clouds do not reflect incoming sunlight and are a net warming influence while the reverse is true of low, bright clouds. The effect then directly influences cooling cloud cover.

However, there is also a counterintuitive parallel effect ‑ condensation and precipitation will likely reduce the total lower atmospheric concentration of that ubiquitous greenhouse gas, water vapour, so increasing clear sky radiative cooling. It's true that clouds account for roughly one-fifth of the greenhouse effect but gaseous water vapour accounts for more than one-half of the total effect. Reduced condensation then would leave an increased proportion of gaseous water vapour with corresponding increase in clear sky greenhouse effect. Increased solar activity acts directly on the Earth with a small increase in radiation, a small heating effect and an associated increase in evaporation. This same increase in activity suppresses cosmic ray penetration of Earth's atmosphere, thus reducing available low cloud condensation nuclei. This sequence of events increases clear sky and incoming radiation while increasing the already dominant clear sky greenhouse effect from gaseous water vapour.

The reverse effect of a more quiescent sun reduces direct solar warming and, by permitting the penetration of cosmic rays, facilitates low cloud formation, which increases reflection of already reduced solar radiation, reduces clear sky, reduces evaporation and simultaneously reduces the availability of the most important greenhouse gas, water vapour, through condensation and precipitation.

Thus solar activity has associative positive feedback when more active and negative feedback when less active, dramatically magnifying Earth's thermal response to changes in solar activity and explaining how fractions of Wm-2 change in direct solar radiation translate to many Wm-2 effect between positive and negative phases of relative solar activity.

Good cloud data is in short supply and covers only the recent decades but we can derive cosmic ray intensity and deduce there has been a general reduction in cloud cover during the 20th Century. While Svensmark is hesitant to extrapolate from very short data series (always a dubious procedure) it is entirely plausible that reduction in low cloud over the period could conservatively be estimated to have increased heating at Earth's surface by 5-10 Wm-2, an amount more than sufficient to account for all the estimated warming over the period.

Svensmark theory makes some intuitive sense because over the last century the Sun has been unusually active - which means fewer cosmic rays, and a warmer climate on Earth. The sun still, except for the normal variation due to sun spot activity which at present is nearing the end of an 11-year cycle, is also coming to the end, in 2 to 3 years, of what is called the "Grand Maximum". (This also will occur when results are expected from Kirkbys CLOUD experiments.) As Richard Black, Environment Correspondent for the BBC states,

"If it does, and if Henrik Svensmark is right, we should then see cosmic rays increase and global temperatures start to fall; if that happens, he can expect to see a Nobel Prize and thousands of red-faced former IPCC members queuing up to hand back the one they have just received."

I can't wait!

But although results from the CLOUD experiments have not yet been published, the Svensmark theory has been subjected to many attacks, from Lockwood, Frohlich and from Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University. One would have thought that the best approach from a controversial theory would be to wait until the CLOUD experiments reported results one way or the other. But that is not the method of global warming science. Every alternative theory has to be trashed in the manner of the ‘quick rebuttal unit' perfected by New Labour.


http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-socialist-perspective-part-two.htm


The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming

Quote:
We analyse the new ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) D2 cloud data to ascertain whether or not a connection between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover exists. Despite a previous finding that total cloud factor and cosmic ray fluxes were correlated, our results indicate that only the low-level cloud follows solar activity over the full period, 1983-1994. Using several proxies for solar activity and the radiative forcing calculated by Ockert-Bell (1992) for the ISCCP cloud types, we estimate the possible impact that such a solar-terrestrial connection may have on climate. We conclude that, possibly excluding the most recent decades, much of the warming of the past century can be quantitatively accounted for by the direct and indirect effects of solar activity.


http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is This The Beginning of Global Cooling?

Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.

Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.



Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.

Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.

Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between "warm" and "cool" phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its "warm" phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its "cool" phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its "warm" phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.

Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beware this phase of solar tranquillity

Quote:
Sir, I was delighted to see your article on solar activity, "The silent sun's uncertain course" (October 2). I assume that the timing of the piece, coming as the world economy sinks into ague, was far from coincidental.

On noting the similarity between the decennial business cycle and the 11-year solar cycle, the famed 19th century economist, William Stanley Jevons, penned a number of articles asserting some connection between the two: "The Solar Period and the Price of Corn" (1875); "The Periodicity of Commercial Crises and its Physical Explanation" (1878); and "Commercial Crises and Sunspots" (1878).

Your article pinpointed recent upsurges in solar activity in 2001-02, 1990-91 and 1980-81. Surely it is no coincidence that these are the dates for the three most recent US recessions. As you point out, the sun is now, inexplicably, becalmed. This takes us into uncharted territory. The last such period of low solar activity occurred between 1645 and 1715, a time of great turmoil in British history. On that occasion it took the English revolution and the execution of the monarch to resolve the deep economic and social crisis.

Maurice Bellow,
London EC1, UK

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a6655b82-933f-11dd-98b5-0000779fd18c.html


Article: The silent Sun’s uncertain course
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the record this should be factored into the
equation. I have an interview with Michael
in the Archive also.

Quote:
Eight Charts Which Prove That
Chandler's Wobble Causes Earthquakes,
Volcanism, El Nino, and Global Warming


by Michael Wells Mandeville

These eight graphs directly correlate and demonstrate that most major
tectonic activity, including earthquakes, volcanism, El Nino, and global
warming phenomenon are caused by the changing location of the poles
as the Earth wobbles back and forth slightly in what is called Chandler's
Wobble. The name for these correlations is called vortex tectonics.

The exact location of the North and South Poles of the Earth's spin axis
are constantly changing while the Earth's crust wobbles slightly around
and over the poles in the 14 month and 6.5 year cycles of Chandler's
Wobble. The eigth graphs in this story board demonstrate that peaks of
seismic and volcanic activity come and go in accordance with these
rhythms of Chandler's Wobble to produce the El Nino syndrome. The
graphs also prove that the total amount of this activity has progressively
increased during the last 50 years while the center of Chandler's Wobble
has slowly drifted towards the Great Lakes. It is highly likely that this
increase in global volcanism is the cause of global warming.

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/vortectonics/vortex_correlations2.htm


The previous thread on 'Global Warming' is here:
Quote:
Latest on Global Warming Bunk
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are getting a little sunspot activity now.
Still quite poor though. Here's the report:

Quote:
Finally, we are seeing Solar Cycle 24 sunspots that don't emerge on
one day, only to evaporate the next
. That's right -- sunspots, as in
two or more. On Friday, October 10, sunspot 1005 emerged at high
latitude over our Sun's eastern limb; that day's sunspot number was 12.

On the following day, the sunspot number rose to 16 and a solar wind
emerging from a coronal hole caused a geomagnetic storm. The
planetary A index rose from a quiet 3 on Friday to 37, and the mid-
latitude A index was 20. The 3-hour planetary K index reached a
maximum of 7 that day, a high value for that scale. Conditions have
quieted again since then.

On Sunday, Monday and Tuesday -- as the spot progressed toward the
center-north of the solar disk -- sunspot numbers were 16, 15 and 14 as
the dark spot began to fade. On Wednesday, the sunspot number faded
another point to 13, but on Thursday, October 16, sunspot 1006 emerged,
but this time in the southwest corner, about to rotate out of view. The
sunspot number for Thursday jumped to 24.

On Wednesday of this week, a reading of activity on the side of the Sun
facing away from Earth found another possible sunspot. This was detected
using a method called helioseismic holography that depends on pressure
waves bouncing around our Sun's interior.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/10/17/10394/

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solar Variations: Too Tiny to Matter — Monckton and Corbyn Respond

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1984


Quote:
The problem with the approach of Dr Chameides and others (eg Lockwood) is that even though they know (or should know) that very many weather phenomena - eg world temperatures and many river floods (eg as excellently researched by Will Alexander) - pretty well follow the magnetic ('Hale') cycle - 22yr - of the Sun they persist in examining effects related to an 11 year solar cycle of particle and light intensity. So obviously half the time the world temperatures etc and solar activity will move in opposite directions (and note there are many modulations of this including lunar effects). So looking over 3 solar cycles as he does will not indicate much which I suggest is why he chooses to do that rather than have a proper look at more data.

The data is there so lets use it! 'Conclusions' of examinations involving single solar cycles or parts of single cycles do not in anyway undermine the massive evidence for solar effects. In fact they reveal either ignorance or a misleading approach on the part of researchers.

1. In terms of smoothed out solar activity (or proxy thereof) over many decades there is very good correlation between solar activity and world temperatures

2. In terms of shorter time scales the correlation between geomagnetic activity and temperatures is EXCELLENT over successive 22yr Hale periods (as a consequence of the magnetic linkage)

3. The reason why 22yr geomagnetic activity beats everything is because that is a measure of particles actually reaching the right places on earth

4. The main world temperature periodicity is the double sunspot 22yr period rather than 11 yrs

So do not fall for solar particles alone as the driver of world temperatures, nor for Cosmic rays which also have to have an 11 year effect which is not observed in long data sets. Magnetic linkage effects are crucial

The upshot of this is essentially that - and this is a simplified look and notwithstanding other modulations (of which CO2 is NOT one):

a) Now we are in a very low particle but relatively good magnetic connectivity phase this still means cooling.

b) When the sun moves into cycle 24 although particles will go up the magnetic connectivity factor will change to 'poor linkage' and still cause generally cooling; this trend will generally carry on to 2013

c) Other modulation effects (eg lunar) in fact suggest a more general decline in smoothed temperatures to around 2030* - and there are other suggestions to continue beyond that from some Russians and others. (not withstanding sub-variations) {*stated at WeatherAction Press conference Sept 30th)

Finally of course, as you frequently point out!, the above ideas are not complete but any amount of shortcomings in them do not give any support to the CO2 centred theory. The CO2 theory fails not because other theories might not have all the answers but because the CO2 theory has no answers and there is no evidence for it in the available data.

All best Piers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The sunspots are finally picking up..... a little:

Quote:
Sun Finally Showing Signs Of Life

Friday, 7 November 2008

After two-plus years of few sunspots, even fewer solar flares, and a
generally eerie calm, the sun is finally showing signs of life.


"I think solar minimum is behind us," says sunspot forecaster David
Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

His statement is prompted by an October flurry of sunspots. "Last month
we counted five sunspot groups," he says. That may not sound like much,
but in a year with record-low numbers of sunspots and long stretches of
utter spotlessness, five is significant. "This represents a real increase in
solar activity."

Even more significant is the fact that four of the five sunspot groups
belonged to Solar Cycle 24
, the long-awaited next installment of the
sun's 11-year solar cycle. "October was the first time we've seen
sunspots from new Solar Cycle 24 outnumbering spots from old Solar
Cycle 23. It's a good sign that the new cycle is taking off."

Old Solar Cycle 23 peaked in 2000 and has since decayed to low levels.
Meanwhile, new Solar Cycle 24 has struggled to get started. 2008 is a
year of overlap with both cycles weakly active at the same time. From
January to September, the sun produced a total of 22 sunspot groups;
82% of them belonged to old Cycle 23. October added five more;
but this time 80% belonged to Cycle 24. The tables have turned.


Hathaway tamps down the excitement: "We're still years away from solar
maximum and, in the meantime, the sun is going to have some more
quiet stretches." Even with its flurry of sunspots, the October sun was
mostly blank, with zero sunspots on 20 of the month's 31 days.

But it's a start. Stay tuned for solar activity.

Meanwhile on the 'warming' hype, Steve Forbes of
Forbes Mag is nailing his colors firmly to the mast.
Against! the CO2 BS and for sunpots:

Quote:
Steve: The Cap & Trade Charade

Steve Forbes 11.03.08, 6:00 AM ET

Frozen credit has occupied our minds of late, but our economy is also
vulnerable to dangerous ideas. One is the notion that we should slow
down the U.S. economy to save the planet from global warming.

There is growing consensus that temperatures on earth correlate to
sunspot activity.
What we're seeing from the sun implies not global
warming but a global cooling that we haven't seen since the "Little Ice
Age" three centuries ago.

There is no proven correlation between temperatures on earth and
carbon dioxide. The earth’s axis, the salinity of the Arctic Ocean and
volcanoes all dramatically affect temperatures. But carbon dioxide?
No way.

Yet we still flirt with imposing a harmful "cap-and-trade" system to limit
carbon emissions. It will constrain our economy, raise prices for
consumers and encourage fraud among those forced to trade emission
credits. It's the wrong solution for a problem that we don't fully
understand.

While the New Scientist handles the
issue with finessed political correctness:

Quote:
Does rainfall vary with sunspot activity?

08 November 2008 - Anil Ananthaswamy - New Scientist Magazine

THE sun is nearly 150 million kilometres away, but it seems to have
Earth's rivers on a leash. The flow of a huge South American river - and
thus the rainfall that feeds it - appears to rise and fall with the number of
sunspots.


Though scientists reject the climate sceptics' assertion that the sun's
activity can explain global warming, many have wondered whether it can
affect rainfall
. No one has been able to test this, though, as it has proved
difficult to collate rainfall measurements over long timescales and areas
large enough to rule out local variations.

Pablo Mauas of the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina and his
colleagues decided to take a different tack by studying the 4000-
kilometre-long Paraná river in South America. It has the fourth-largest
streamflow in the world and so acts as an indirect indicator of rainfall right
across the continent.

Link

Ahem. The 'sunspot climate model' says:

Low sunpots > More cloud > More Rain and Cooler.

The New Scientist can't ignore the new research confirming
this, so they erect a smokesscreen and ignore that last bit. Laughing Laughing

Low sunpots > More cloud > More Rain.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 56, 57, 58  Next
Page 2 of 58

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.