Here's how the sunspot cycle has been shaping up for the last few years:
It's looking like we will have a lower sunspot level than models initially predicted.
Posted on 08/25/2011 5:33:40 AM PDT by magellan
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.
The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.
Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.
[snip]
Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature:
"[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."
(Excerpt) Read more at theregister.co.uk ...
FACTS are such an inconvenient truth.
Oh the irony.
It doesn’t matter what factors are changed, as long as the climate model equation remains the same:
A-B+C= AGW (manmade global warming)
A= Heating
B= Cooling
C= AGW-A+B
AGW is the only truly “known” in the equation. Everything else is just adjusted as required to make it equal to AGW.
It was a Danish scientist, Henrik Svensmark, who posited the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation and the role of changes in solar magnetism in changing the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earth’s atmosphere as the causal mechanism linking the sunspot cycle to global temperature. In fact, the phenomenon CERN just confirmed is called “the Svensmark effect”.
I think you may be confusing him with a Hungarian scientist, Ferenc M. Miskolczi, who also dealt a significant blow to the AGW alarmism by recalculation the solution to the differential equations governing the greenhouse effect with realistic boundary conditions (instead of the simplifying assumption of a “semi-infinite” atmosphere used since about the 1920’s and used in all models that “support” the AGW theory). His solutions agreed with observation on both Earth and Mars without any fudging, and (here’s what’s deadly to climate alarmism, albeit not to the possibility of human causation of global warming) predict that run-away greenhouse warming is impossible: the greenhouse effect is self-limiting, even without other negative feedback mechanisms.
Good post. Here’s one of the money quotes:
“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.””
Calling IPPC? Kyoto? EPA? Obama? Al? Algore? You out there?
It's an organization that benefits be creating more rules and programs that destroy jobs and competitiveness. They are mostly useless and point to trivial garbage as testaments to their success and need. They hop on every populist bandwagon, they are politicized and they are redundant because this is a function federal law enforcement and states should handle. The EPA is a bunch of GS11 - 14s plus executive schedule paid folks that make their money generating papers and keeping records that mean little in the grand scheme of things. Another 11 billion in tax dollars to people that create no wealth! The EPA has no product or service, rather they deliver this abstract notion of environmental security/safety and the 11 billion they cost the tax payer is the tip of the iceberg. The real cost is in the form of restrictions and delays as well as burdensome administrative garbage that still costs man-hours they cost those people that do create wealth. The very existence of this agency was a political expedient action to benefit political careers (Nixon and some others) in a time of growing environmentalist concerns. It's another centralized approach where you have Washington decide, thousands of special rules, government initiatives and programs, social experiments, exemptions and statuses and games being played so that winners and losers are decided politically rather than in a free market place.
I agree it should be done away with, but the demogoguery from the left would make an outright disbanding of it impossible, politically.
But, making them do human and economic impact studies, and getting any policy with the force of law approved by Congress would be ways of “disbanding” them in a way that would be difficult to oppose.
I guess that way we just pay 11 billion a year so 17,000 people can sit around and do nothing, but at least as you state, they won’t be hurting everyone else.
What? An experiment? In modern science? And here I thought you just designed a model to give you the results you wanted.
In my personal library I have a book by Peter Freuchen that lists several different theories regarding climactic changes. The discussion revolves around why we have climate changes and ice ages. The theories that Freuchen lists are changes in ocean currents, surface salinity, the inclination of the Earth’s axis via precession, changes in the orbit, CO2 levels, cosmic rays, galactic dust which cuts sunlight, solar output, and volcanoes.
The copyright is 1957!
IMHO, the answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE. The Earth’s climate is an incredibly complex interaction of many variables most of which we barely understand. AGW was a hoax from the beginning. It served many political and econut goals.
The jig is up.
Svensmark is Danish, so he is really North European, not Eastern European.
The great Serbian-American scientist, engineer, and inventor Nikola Tesla did research (and filed patents) related to cosmic rays:
http://www.andre-waser.ch/Publications/NikolaTeslasRadiationsAndCosmicRays.pdf
But, of course, he had no IPCC, Algore, or “global warming”-driven ideologies and politics to contend with!!!!
The back section—which is the main section—of the journal Nature is FULL of experiments, and of real scientific analyses of these experiments.
The front section is full of journalistic screeds, centered around leftist ideologies calling for hyper-regulation, globalism, and socialism. They are now even calling their editorials “opinionated editorials”!!!! I’m not kidding!
I have to read Nature for my work. As Sunday—and Holy Communion—draws near every week, and during Orthodox fasting seasons—I have to skip the front section of Nature. If I read articles in it, I will be unable to have a peaceful heart to receive the Holy Sacrament.
See my posts 31 and 32.
Wasn;t there a report from NASA recently about sea levels actually FALLING?
I guess they will really have to revise them “theories” now.
The affects of cosmic rays actually magnify the affects of solar activity changes. When the sun is more active, less clouds form on the Earth, which allows more solar energy into the biosphere. When the sun is less active, more clouds form on the Earth, which allows less solar energy into the biosphere. So the sun is the dominate factor when you are talking climate change. Most of us already knew that anyway. The underlying science of this study, just magnifies the effects.
This is a con job. No way this “fancy machine” can mimic the climate system. This is an attempt to hijack the money found in the aerosol sciences.
Don’t believe me? Look at what that a$$hole Gavin Schmidt is saying on Real Climate:
Gave up on leftist a long time ago. Takes years worth of effort to educate them, and when they finally learn something new, you just end up with slightly better educated leftist. Definitely not worth the effort.
Here's how the sunspot cycle has been shaping up for the last few years:
It's looking like we will have a lower sunspot level than models initially predicted.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.