PDA

View Full Version : Cosmic Rays and Climate Redux


dharma
01-13-2009, 01:10 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2eLthVbBG2KB428zgeirvoWrHIw

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

Jan 13, 2009 (AFP)

COPENHAGEN — The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

"Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics," one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.

He and his colleague Peter Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), compared a reconstruction of the prehistoric magnetic field 5,000 years ago based on data drawn from stalagmites and stalactites found in China and Oman.

The results of the study, which has also been published in US scientific journal Geology, lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed the climate was highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the earth's atmosphere.

Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.

"The only way we can explain the (geomagnetic-climate) connection is through the exact same physical mechanisms that were present in Henrik Svensmark's theory," Knudsen said.

"If changes in the magnetic field, which occur independently of the earth's climate, can be linked to changes in precipitation, then it can only be explained through the magnetic field's blocking of the cosmic rays," he said.

The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate, "but the climate is an incredibly complex system, and it is unlikely we have a full overview over which factors play a part and how important each is in a given circumstance," Riisager told Videnskab.

Link to abstract: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/71

Link to Danish Science: http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/jordens_magnetfelt_pavirker_klimaet

Fiddlerdave
01-13-2009, 01:17 PM
Desperate, desperate Denialists. Any straw, however frail and tinhat, will do for them to try to deny reality.

It remains not a shred of science from anybody, themselves included (you may notice their attempts to avoid complete classification of crackpots as they admit the importance of CO2), backs up the "cosmic ray" hypothesis (its not a theory) except for the wonderings of desperate minds trying to fullfill their oil company grant requirements.

dharma
01-13-2009, 04:01 PM
It remains not a shred of science from anybody, themselves included (you may notice their attempts to avoid complete classification of crackpots as they admit the importance of CO2), backs up the "cosmic ray" hypothesis (its not a theory) except for the wonderings [sic] of desperate minds trying to fulfill their oil company grant requirements.
Feel free to argue with what is actually in the article, Dave. Let me help you:

"Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics"

They note a correlation (you may recall that the carbon dioxide hypothesis of global warming rests on correlation as well). It is a datum; it qualifies in my mind as a "shred of science", though you are welcome to argue against it with another fact-free rant.

Please feel free as well to demonstrate that these gentlemen depend on oil companies for their incomes. If you can't, feel free to stop depending on this childish canard to make your "arguments", though I will admit this will severely abbreviate your posts.

Fiddlerdave
01-13-2009, 11:52 PM
Feel free to argue with what is actually in the article, Dave. Let me help you:



They note a correlation (you may recall that the carbon dioxide hypothesis of global warming rests on correlation as well). It is a datum; it qualifies in my mind as a "shred of science", though you are welcome to argue against it with another fact-free rant. I am sure it qualifies as "science" in your mind, no problem there. But your enthusiastic and positive "datum" comparison is highly exaggerated by oil-tinted glasses.

The correlation involved with historical CO2 records and warming is that it CONFIRMS the effect of the known and demonstrated properties of CO2 as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, and associates these with actual climate events in planetary history. It is something we call SCIENCE, with agencies, methods, and physical properties clear and well known, with ACTUAL historical records as confirmation of the well-developed theory.

The effects of cosmic rays on ANY part of the atmosphere is EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE as to IF it happens, and if so, HOW it does it. The "corellation" the precipitation guesstimates loosely show associated with magnetic field changes is ALL there is to even indicate an effect from cosmic rays AT ALL, and from that, a few (very few) scientists are trying to postulate that cosmic rays affect cloud patterns, with wild guesses that have basically NO currently known physical agency, much less any proven methods.

That is why even these researchers call the cosmic ray-climate link "controversial", and in fact only claim "some degree of support "for the whole idea. Their conclusion is limited to "suggesting that Earth's magnetic field to some degree influenced low-latitude precipitation in the past." The Denialists are pouring on the descriptions beyond that, which is the usual modus operandi for the propaganda mills and quicky quote machines.

But that is enough for Denialists to run with it as FACT, we understand. It means life stays comfortable and profitable for entrenched interests, a little while longer, anyway. :re:

Fiddlerdave
01-14-2009, 12:03 AM
An discussion of the concepts of "cosmic ray GW".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651-climate-myths-its-all-down-to-cosmic-rays.html

Climate myths: It's all down to cosmic rays
17:00 16 May 2007 by Fred Pearce

The variation in the total amount of energy reaching Earth from the Sun is one of the main factors determining our planet's climate (see Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans).

However, this factor alone cannot explain the recent warming nor, indeed, can it fully explain many past changes such as Earth's ice ages. But what if changes in the Sun's activity have larger-than-expected effects on the climate?

There are plenty of ideas about how this could happen. For instance, one as-yet-unproven idea is that changes in the relative amount of ultraviolet light emitted by the Sun might affect the ozone layer, heating the stratosphere and altering circulation patterns in the lower atmosphere.

In the late 1990s, some Danish scientists revived another idea, proposed decades earlier, that cosmic rays might be able to amplify small changes in solar activity by ionising the atmosphere and triggering cloud formation.

Chilling idea
Increased sunspot activity is known to strengthen the Sun's magnetic field, which deflects more of the galactic cosmic rays entering the solar system and thus reducing the number hitting Earth. The argument championed by Henrik Svensmark is that this would reduce cloud formation in the atmosphere - warming the Earth - and that this effect explains the recent global warming.

The case has been made at greater length in a book Svensmark wrote with science journalist Nigel Calder (who edited New Scientist from 1962 to 1966), called The Chilling Stars.

There are at least three separate issues here. First, do cosmic rays really trigger cloud formation? If so, how do the resulting changes in cloud cover affect temperature? Finally, does this explain the warming trend of the past few decades?

Far-fetched concept
There is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major factor determining cloud cover. The ionising of air by cosmic rays will impart an electric charge to aerosols, which in theory could encourage them to clump together to form particles large enough for cloud droplets to form around, called "cloud condensation nuclei".

But cloud physicists say it has yet to be shown that such clumping occurs. And even if it does, it seems far-fetched to expect any great effect on the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Most of the atmosphere, even relatively clean marine air, has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei already.

A series of attempts by Svensmark to show an effect have come unstuck. Initially, Svensmark claimed there was a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and satellite measurements of total cloud cover since the 1980s - yet a correlation does not prove cause and effect. It could equally well reflect changes in solar irradiance, which inversely correlate with cosmic ray intensity.

Furthermore, this apparent correlation depended on adjustments to the data, and it does not hold up when more recent cloud measurements from 1996 onwards are included.

Beguiling fit
Svensmark and others then pointed to an apparent correlation between low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. But after 1995, the beguiling fit of Svensmark's graph depends on a "correction" of satellite data, and the satellite scientists say this is not justified. "It's dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis," says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, UK.

Then there is the question of how changes in clouds will affect climate. Svensmark claims the overall effect of less cloud cover is a warmer world, with less heat loss due to reflection off clouds during the day outweighing higher loss of heat at night.

Yet even during the day, many clouds in the upper atmosphere can have a warming effect. Not all scientists agree that reducing cloud cover would warm the planet.

In fact, clouds are one of the greatest uncertainties in climate science. It is not even clear whether the satellite measurements of changes in cloudiness are correct or how these changes have affected temperature, let alone what will happen in the future. Clouds might mitigate global warming or amplify it.

No trend
Finally, and most importantly, even if cosmic ray intensity does turn out to influence cloud cover and temperature, it cannot explain the warming trend of the past few decades. Direct measurements of cosmic ray intensity going back as far as 50 years show no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming.

Indirect measurements of cosmic rays, based on the abundance of certain atmospheric isotopes formed by them, suggest that intensity fell between 1900 and 1950. Yet while there can be a lag between a sudden jump in a climate "forcing" and its full effect on temperature, most warming should occur within a few years and taper off within decades..

The wild claims of Svensmark do not mean that the idea of a link between cosmic rays and clouds is nonsense. It is taken seriously by a small number of scientists. A handful of studies using different methods hint at a very tiny effect, though more have found none.

Experiments now underway at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) should settle the issue of whether cosmic rays can trigger the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, though this will not reveal whether it matters in the real world.

The bottom line is that whether or not cosmic rays have affected the climate in the more distant past, they cannot explain our planet's recent warming.

dharma
01-14-2009, 12:52 AM
The correlation involved with historical CO2 records and warming is that it CONFIRMS the effect of the known and demonstrated properties of CO2 as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, and associates these with actual climate events in planetary history. ... ACTUAL historical records as confirmation of the well-developed theory.
Ah, yes, those historical records. Presumably you mean the extensive fossil evidence that increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere LAG global warming—effect, not cause. Very persuasive. Very confirmatory.

The effects of cosmic rays on ANY part of the atmosphere is EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE as to IF it happens, and if so, HOW it does it. ... That is why even these researchers call the cosmic ray-climate link "controversial", and in fact only claim "some degree of support "for the whole idea. ...
Sic semper real science: one datum at a time.

dharma
01-14-2009, 12:54 AM
after 1995, the beguiling fit of Svensmark's graph depends on a "correction" of satellite data, and the satellite scientists say this is not justified. "It's dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis," says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, UK.
How reminiscent of a certain hockey stick. Why, it's positively Hansenesque.

http://curevents.org/showthread.php?t=7213

Ross
01-14-2009, 05:54 AM
FiddlerDave .....you have produced an article from New Scientist that
attacks the cosmic radiation theory , the implication being that it
constitutes a well founded scientific rebuttal.

Presumably you aware that the author 'Fred Pearce' is a hack journalist ,
totally without qualifications and a global warming obsessional .

Yet you have no hesitation ridiculing genuine scientific reports and papers
produced by others on this forum that do not agree with your position .

Just a fraction hypocritical perhaps ? :D

Fiddlerdave
01-14-2009, 01:42 PM
FiddlerDave .....you have produced an article from New Scientist that
attacks the cosmic radiation theory , the implication being that it
constitutes a well founded scientific rebuttal.

Presumably you aware that the author 'Fred Pearce' is a hack journalist ,
totally without qualifications and a global warming obsessional .

Yet you have no hesitation ridiculing genuine scientific reports and papers
produced by others on this forum that do not agree with your position .

Just a fraction hypocritical perhaps ? :DNope.

Note my description of the article as a discussion of the concepts. I did not present it as "scientific proof", I chose it for readability (Pearce is a noted science writer and does a good job - he makes no claims of his own) and to get across the point that one guy (Svensmark) is presenting a cosmic ray speculation that few or no others find any basis for whatsoever at ANY step in the chain, for cause or method of effect. (The methods Svensmark describes for HOW cosmic rays cause clouds seem apparent only to him). I am sorry you cannot tell the difference.

The current study appears to present a loose association of precipitation to earth's magnetic field changes, no more. But that doesn't stop Denialists slapping on massive headlines far beyond anything in the study and making it Gospel for themselves why current GW theories "can't be true". THAT is "hack journalism" at its finest, of course, the sources of the exaggerations are anonymous, Denialists love that.

southerncross
01-15-2009, 07:48 AM
Dave why is it that you continually dismiss out of hand any evidence or theory, hypothesis, article or anything else to do with anything contrary to you own belief's in AGW instead of actually debating or confronting the evidence put before you with a rational and reasoned response?
Your only argument seem's to be based on your own opinion rather than anything else, and often you act like water and choose the path of least resistance when it comes to making any sort of relevant rebuttal via trying to invalidate a post or articles source due to the qualifications of the Author when quite often your own sources are of equal or lesser value.
Just slapping the label of Denialist on any and every post or source of info is not a debate Dave nor an argument for your position.

Fiddlerdave
01-15-2009, 03:05 PM
Dave why is it that you continually dismiss out of hand any evidence or theory, hypothesis, article or anything else to do with anything contrary to you own belief's in AGW instead of actually debating or confronting the evidence put before you with a rational and reasoned response?
Your only argument seem's to be based on your own opinion rather than anything else, and often you act like water and choose the path of least resistance when it comes to making any sort of relevant rebuttal via trying to invalidate a post or articles source due to the qualifications of the Author when quite often your own sources are of equal or lesser value.
Just slapping the label of Denialist on any and every post or source of info is not a debate Dave nor an argument for your position.I am not dismissing "out of hand". Frankly, I have looked closer at many of these alternative theories than any Denialist I see here (just as Denialists seem to not bother to look at anything about AGW other than what Denialist sources criticise by sound bite).

With "Cosmic Ray Global Warming", there is barely ONE fringe scientist who published a speculation, which other scientists did indeed look at, and found no physical basis for it, as well as cooked records. There is no evidence or even serious physical postulation of electron ions creating cloud seeds, etc. etc. The weather records of precipitation from this current study are regional and spotty, and these correlations are poor at best, and could easily be matched by corellations with hem lengths and hat styles too. Perhaps it is possible, but there is just nothing connecting it in any serious way. Yet we are to toss a huge body of hard, peer reviewed science, checked and double checked by the great and mean alike, disproving or correcting any part of the current body of AGW science brings much recognition.

How can I disprove the unproven speculative other than to say "there is NO evidence"? You don't even read the abstract of this study, whose own words I used in response, all you believe is the headline which the study authors didn't even put on it!! These kinds of loose corellations with no connected underlying science are curiousities at best, maybe they are "breakthoughs" yet to be discovered, but no one has done it yet. There is NO comparison in the evidence and science involved.

But I have some frustration of wading through a 1000 Denialist google returns, "Senate Minority Reports", and assertions that AGW is a massive sham perpetrated by 95% of the world's climatologists to even get to the basics of the reality of this minor point of speculation.