|
Post by magellan on Aug 2, 2009 23:48:09 GMT
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtmlCosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds Abstract Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale. Conclusion Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism, the loss of ions from the air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans. So marked is the response to relatively small variations in the total ionization, we suspect that a large fraction of Earth’s clouds could be controlled by ionization. Future work should estimate how large a volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is involved in the ion process that leads to the changes seen in CCN and its importance for the Earth’s radiation budget. From solar activity to cosmic ray ionization to aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale.
Svensmark, H., T. Bondo, and J. Svensmark (2009),
Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds,
Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL038429, in press.
Oh but clouds are second rate to CO2 ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 3, 2009 0:04:58 GMT
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtmlCosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds Abstract Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale. Conclusion Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism, the loss of ions from the air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans. So marked is the response to relatively small variations in the total ionization, we suspect that a large fraction of Earth’s clouds could be controlled by ionization. Future work should estimate how large a volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is involved in the ion process that leads to the changes seen in CCN and its importance for the Earth’s radiation budget. From solar activity to cosmic ray ionization to aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale.
Svensmark, H., T. Bondo, and J. Svensmark (2009),
Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds,
Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL038429, in press.
Oh but clouds are second rate to CO2 ;D ;D ;D Magellon: Thank you. This proves that the research continues, and that is what is soooo very important. Co2 is a bit player in climate, which anyone worth their salt knows. Tiz refreshing that the science is not quit settled as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Dec 1, 2009 3:59:57 GMT
Yes there were stupid people back then but we have now perfected the formula and have produced a whole generation of brainwashed dimwitted losers who actually believe they are clever! Progress, Progress etc. yawn. Perhaps, but with the publication of 10-years of emails between top climate scientists like Trenberth at NCAR and the lies they have told and published over nearly a decade show they made up data altered others, and censored true data to gain powerful influence on the political world on the myth of man-made global warming - then the brainwashing will stop. I've long held that the Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth, and the other planets in our solar system, and the myth of "man-made global warming" has been pushed onto the public is because of all the money that has flowed into the coffers of conventional climate scientists. Those days are coming to an end, but valuable time, and resources have been wasted by these IPCC-connected climatologists who in their own words condemn themselves to being careerists more concerned about their own names, egos, peer-reviewed publications, and winning peace prizes for themselves rather than actually doing true climate research. Read some of these emails, and you will discover just how careerism works and how much damage these people have done blaming humanity for global warming. The main players in this whole house of "man-made global warming" cards are hiding out and not responding to requests for interviews. CRU emails - www.eastangliaemails.com/index.phpAlso see - www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/21/ap/world/main5727910.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBodyAlso See - news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39903084,00.htm
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 1, 2009 6:24:36 GMT
Just saw this lecture from Jasper Kirkby (the guy leading the team testing Svensmark's theory in Switzerland). It's an hour long video from the middle of this year; he explains various correlations between the Sun cycle and Earth's climate, I hadn't heard of the monsoon match before. seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists(He doesn't manage to explain Svensmark's theory very well though.)
|
|
|
Post by glc on Dec 1, 2009 9:54:30 GMT
Perhaps, but with the publication of 10-years of emails between top climate scientists like Trenberth at NCAR and the lies they have told and published over nearly a decade show they made up data altered others, and censored true data to gain powerful influence on the political world on the myth of man-made global warming - then the brainwashing will stop.
Wrong on pretty much every count. NO data has been made up and NO data has been altered.
What is apparent from the CRU emails is that reconstructions have been 'doctored' in the end years to make them appear more like the observed temperature record. This was suspected by a number of people (including me) for a while. I challenged Michael Mann on this very issue around 5 years ago. Mann denied the practice took place.
The only thing we can say for certain is that tree-ring reconstructions are unreliable - again this something many of us knew anyway.
I've long held that the Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth, and the other planets in our solar system,
There's no evidence for this. We have the deepest minimum in a century, high GCR count and .... the prospect of the second warmest year on record in 2010.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Dec 1, 2009 11:00:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 1, 2009 11:43:53 GMT
Ah, thanks kiwi, they both work for me, maybe it's oz's internet censorship at work. I've long held that the Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth, and the other planets in our solar system, There's no evidence for this. We have the deepest minimum in a century, high GCR count and .... the prospect of the second warmest year on record in 2010. Perhaps the second consecutive year of Summer Arctic Sea ice increase was caused by the quiet Sun. Not to mention the record Antarctic extent. Could 2009 still be 2nd warmest? I think that Nov and Dec would have to be pretty special. EDIT, hah, nevermind, I read 2009 instead of 2010, we'll see
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 1, 2009 11:44:39 GMT
astromet, et al
Don't smile too much yet. Not long ago Danish scientist Friis-Christensen had it all together with a solar cycle length vs. temperature tie-in, but the media and climate activists beat that down to the point that at last his research bowed on bended knee to the gods of GW. The activists haven't had time yet to dispell all the rumors that the sun influences our climate. Remember, although the sun may be OUR focus, we are still living in the Dark Ages of science. Solar value "k" still shall not ... SHALL NOT vary if thou wantest thy climate model to be acceptable. Methinks it will be awhile before the grip does loosen. ;D
|
|
|
Post by glc on Dec 1, 2009 13:04:42 GMT
astromet, et al
Don't smile too much yet. Not long ago Danish scientist Friis-Christensen had it all together with a solar cycle length vs. temperature tie-in, but the media and climate activists beat that down to the point that at last his research bowed on bended knee to the gods of GW.
The problem with the F-C "tie-in" is that it's clearly wrong. The link broke down in ~1975 and is spectacularly wrong now. The length of the most recent cycle, i.e. SC23, is at least 12 years. According to F-C, temperatures should be about ONE degeree lower than they currently are.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Dec 1, 2009 13:08:03 GMT
Perhaps the second consecutive year of Summer Arctic Sea ice increase was caused by the quiet Sun. Not to mention the record Antarctic extent.
The low arctic ice extent in 2007 was, as has been acknowledged, due to unusual waether conditions. The 2008 and 2009 extents are still way below even the most pessimistic model predictions.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Dec 1, 2009 13:52:14 GMT
After looking at the process of gathering data, adjusting it, and programming results that is being done by ALL research groups (at least where such info is available), I don't see how any rational person could have any confidence that the announced monthly/yearly global temperatures are accurate within a degree, particularly since most of the high temperature anomalies seem to be coming from the least populated (thus fewest measuring stations) areas.
No one can respect CRU's results after reading the Harry-read-me file.; it's well documented that the location of temperature stations don't meet requirements; urban heat adjustments are a guess (and are even criticized by Jones), grid-averaging and interpolation leads to increased uncertainty, microwave satellite observations require multiple adjustments to render a temperature analysis, with some approximations required like adjustments for satellite drift, and on and on.
Trends, where the process remained static from year to year, might be possible, but we know that the process HASN'T remained static; stations have been moved, new construction, new equipment (which means a different callibration), satellites have drifted, ....
It's a mess, and one of my biggest objections to this process is the purported accuracy being claimed. The error bars greatly exceed the claimed increase in temps. This year could be one of the warmest on record, or one of the coldest.
|
|
|
Post by bprimerano on Dec 1, 2009 15:28:52 GMT
After looking at the process of gathering data, adjusting it, and programming results that is being done by ALL research groups (at least where such info is available), I don't see how any rational person could have any confidence that the announced monthly/yearly global temperatures are accurate within a degree, particularly since most of the high temperature anomalies seem to be coming from the least populated (thus fewest measuring stations) areas. No one can respect CRU's results after reading the Harry-read-me file.; it's well documented that the location of temperature stations don't meet requirements; urban heat adjustments are a guess (and are even criticized by Jones), grid-averaging and interpolation leads to increased uncertainty, microwave satellite observations require multiple adjustments to render a temperature analysis, with some approximations required like adjustments for satellite drift, and on and on. Trends, where the process remained static from year to year, might be possible, but we know that the process HASN'T remained static; stations have been moved, new construction, new equipment (which means a different callibration), satellites have drifted, .... It's a mess, and one of my biggest objections to this process is the purported accuracy being claimed. The error bars greatly exceed the claimed increase in temps. This year could be one of the warmest on record, or one of the coldest. Can I get an AMEN!
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 1, 2009 17:18:50 GMT
OK, so here's where I'm coming from. Personally I DO believe temperatures are dropping ... and have been since 1996. I'm not talking surface temps so much as stratosphere and the fact that for awhile we had a high gradient between overheated ocean waters from the early '90's and cooling above the tropo (hurricane/tornado machine). I became a Novice when I was 13 (42 years ago). I've always watched the solar cycles because I have always loved HF on 40-, 20-, 15- and especially 10-meters. My older Ham mentors in West Texas were often also farmers. With that combination, I've never doubted a powerful connection between sun and climate, irregardless of pollution. I don't NEED pseudo-scientific editorial re-writers to tell me what's happening ... ... I can walk outside and FEEL it! To me, it was a dark day when Dr. Schatten left Goddard and went to the NSF. He was absolutely RIGHT about Cycle 23, and no one wants to admit it. Three cheers to universities like Stanford and folks like Amara Grapps and others who have tried to keep an open mind in the face of such horrific political pressure. ;D
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 1, 2009 20:27:23 GMT
Well, that's good news, so in a few decades we can have an "Elfstedentocht" every year! Great! I love skating. Until now this year has been about 0.8 C too warm here, dispite having some ice in January for the first time since 1997, so hopefully this winter will be really cold. How cold do you think it will be in 2030? Colder than the mid 20th century (you could almost skate every year here then)? How much colder than now? Colder than the little ice age? Because I'll write it down in my agenda and keep copying it, so that I can see if your predictions come true. I am afraid however, that it will be as with Piers Corbyn's superstorms... They never happen... but of course I can't predict the future, so we'll see!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 1, 2009 23:17:08 GMT
Perhaps the second consecutive year of Summer Arctic Sea ice increase was caused by the quiet Sun. Not to mention the record Antarctic extent.The low arctic ice extent in 2007 was, as has been acknowledged, due to unusual waether conditions. The 2008 and 2009 extents are still way below even the most pessimistic model predictions. Sheeesh the models are wrong . . . .again!!! Surprise surprise surprise. LOL!
|
|