Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Clouds Come from Deep Space Too

If this Particle Nucleation by cosmic rays proves out, doesn't it throw a giant monkey wrench into the present climate modeling?

I started several threads, in various science forums, titled " Lightning Comes from Space" citing Joe Dwyer's work at FIT on runaway cascade initiation of lightning from his observations of X-Rays and Y-Rays.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...F9683414B7FFE9F

Dwyer's paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

Looks like I'll have to update them with " Clouds Come from Space Too"


cosmic rays & clouds:

http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m.cgi?id=1159917791|cgifunction=form

NEWS from spacecenter.dk

October 4th 2006
Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate
A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth?s climate.

An essential role for remote stars in everyday weather on Earth has been revealed by an experiment at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. It is already well-established that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars far away in the Milky Way, penetrate Earth?s atmosphere they produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons. Now, results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds. Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth?s atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.

The Danish team officially announce their discovery on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society, the British national academy of science.

The experiment

The experiment called SKY (Danish for ?cloud?) took place in a large reaction chamber which contained a mixture of gases at realistic concentrations to imitate the chemistry of the lower atmosphere. Ultraviolet lamps mimicked the action of the Sun?s rays. During experimental runs, instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.

The data revealed that electrons released by cosmic rays act as catalysts, which significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei. A vast numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared, floating in the air in the reaction chamber.

?We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,? says team leader Henrik Svensmark, who is Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research within the Danish National Space Center. ?This is a completely new result within climate science.?

A missing link in climate theory

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth?s climate through their effect on cloud formation. The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.

It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth?s surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth?s climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth?s climate.

Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun?s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.

?Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,? comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ?Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research.?

Publication data

Published online in ?Proceedings of the Royal Society A?, October 3rd

Title: ?Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions?.

Authors: Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerh?j.

For more information and supporting material: www.spacecenter.dk/media
Requests for interview and original article: press-requests@spacecenter.dk


Erich J. Knight

Wow, another in a long list of things that affect the climate. Particulate pollution does a similar job. I recall seeing a program recently about how the USA reduction in pariculates during the 70's and 80' influenced African climate and reduced the global cooling contribution so as to make warming contributions more noticable globally in the 90's. Fortunately, SE Asia is now taking up the slack. ~

EK wrote:
"If this Particle Nucleation by cosmic rays proves out, doesn't it throw a giant monkey wrench into the present climate modeling?"

No.

Certainly it adds an additional consideration to future modeling efforts but generally speaking it is assumed to be somewhat constant.

how can it be considered constant? the cosmic radiation reaching the earth is affected by how much matter is ejected by solar flares. For years people have been pointing out how the intensity and number of solar flares there were had a sticking corrilation between the variations of global temperature, but the gwa constantly refused to acknowledge this as there was no decernable connection. now its know.

the more matter is ejected, the less cosmic radiation gets through to the earth. the less c.r. the less cloud cover. the less low lever cloud cover the more heat escapes to space.

c.r. might be realitively stable, i dont know how much it varies, but solar flares are not, nor is the intensity of them. Any model that does not take into account solar flares (and the modelers refuse to accept it as a possiblity, so none of the take it into account) cant possible be correct.

More Earth and Space Weather Conections:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...ther_link.html


First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found

09.12.06


Weather on Earth has a surprising connection to space weather occurring high in the electrically-charged upper atmosphere, known as the ionosphere, according to new results from NASA satellites.

"This discovery will help improve forecasts of turbulence in the ionosphere, which can disrupt radio transmissions and the reception of signals from the Global Positioning System," said Thomas Immel of the University of California, Berkeley, lead author of a paper on the research published August 11 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Researchers discovered that tides of air generated by intense thunderstorm activity over South America, Africa and Southeast Asia were altering the structure of the ionosphere.


Erich

erich knight, do you have another link, that was keeps saying it does not exist.

Sorry.........I should always double check.

First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

Dehammer ... erich knight wrote:
"climate modeling?"

If you don't understand the difference between climate modeling and "weather" just ask.

roflol.

weather is part of the climate.

the models they used to try to determine what will happen with the climate over the next few decades does not take into account the effect of the solar activity, because the people that make them have stated that there are no known way the solar flares can affect the climate. If the solar flares are keeping the cosmic radation from making clouds, then it is most definately effecting climate. How are those models going to be accruate if they dont take into account the fact that the solar activity is causing a cooling effect or not by its intensity and number of eruptions.

I've no idea why you are laughing:

http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/arcticmet/basics/weather_vs_climate.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

nothing there that i did not already know. nothing there to indicate that they have taken into account the effect of the cosmic radiation of create clouds with the climate models.


if the clouds are part of weather, then they are a part of climate, and thus anything that creates them has to be considered in any true model of climate.

I think you guys are not seeing the weather for the trees ,or the forest for the climate.


It will be interesting when we know what % of cloud cover is created by CRs. If it is high, I hope the Republicans won't try to use it to obfuscate the dangers of Green house gases.

A reply from Mary fran, I've asked for her source:

At: http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html
Re: Clouds Come from Deep Space Too
posted on 10/12/2006 3:34 PM by maryfran^

i have read that there is about a 20% connection of cosmic rays influencing the clouds cover, that is a cloudy day increase by approx 20 per cent when the cosmic ray flux is high? so compared with greenhouse gases the effect of cosmic rays on the earth climate is small.

? will this percentage of connection be much higher??

also the amount of cosmic rays that reach to the earth are in some way controlled by the variable and cyclic solar winds. then it is quite possible that humans are not the unique responsible for some of the observed temperature increases in the earth.

Also it is curious that the earth and us are influenced by all kind of cosmological events occurred in the past (cosmic rays from exploding stars, and other phenomena) that make our lifes are running in the ?present time? linked to events occurred in a past-tense-universe.
mf



Erich

dehammer wrote:
"nothing there that i did not already know."

Then why would you post what you did? Knee jerk inability to agree with me when I am correct?

I posted it partially because i remembered you on one thread claiming that it was meterologist, and not climatolgist that paid attension to the long term effects of weather.

then you posted here that you would teach us the difference.

you suggest that things that effect the weather will not effect the climate forcast of decades from now. I say that it is proof that the solar flares have much more effect on the weather and on climate than the climate models makers are willing to accept (if they accept it at all). many have denied that it has any effect because the connection has never been determined before. now we have the connection, so they need to redo the models.

I know you're talking about solar flares above, but thought this might still apply. This quote is from Hansens (2006b) paper that generated the "Dangerous" article. It's from section3.3.3, entitled Solar Irradiance, of the 'Transient' part of the total JGR submission that he then split.
"Ample evidence for longterm solar change and a link to climate has long been recognized
[Eddy, 1976], and solar models admit the possibility of such change."
& "At least until precise measurements of irradiance extend over several decades and more comprehensive solar models are available, solar climate forcing is likely to remain highly uncertain. ~[Hansen 2006b]
~Sam

Hot from MaryFran:

hi
see if this can help
mf

?? cosmic rays. These high-energy particles originate in outer space and in solar flares, and can have a small but significant effect on the weather, increasing the chances of an overcast day by nearly 20 per cent.
Giles Harrison and David Stephenson from the University of Reading, UK, examined 50 years of solar radiation measurements from sites all over the country, enabling them to calculate daily changes in cloudiness. By comparing this data with neutron counts - a measure of cosmic ray activity - for the same period, the scientists have shown an unambiguous link between cosmic rays and clouds (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628).
"The odds of a cloudy day increase by around 20 per cent when the cosmic ray flux is high," says Harrison, amounting to a few extra days of cloudiness per year.?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925365.700

lets see if this works out

when the flux is high, there is a 20 percent change at any one place that there will be more clouds (the radiation is hitting the entire earth), so basically, over then entire earth, there will be something in the neighborhood of 20 percent more low level clouds. As i understand it, lowe level clouds cause more hear retension while high level clouds cause more cooling.

a higher percentage of low level clouds means a lower percentage of higher level clouds (since they use the same mosture).

thus during higher flux the earth stays warmer and during lower flux.

solar activity reduces cosmic ray flux by blocking it out or reflecting it or something, I dont know how this is, just that it is.

corrilary, when the solar flares are high, the earth warms up, and when the solar flares are low, the earth cools.

I know some of the poeple that do the models have refused to account for the solar activity. NASA has found that they can predict the cycles to a certain degree, albet not with any great accuracy. Still a general amount of prediction helps in forcasting the future weather. We know what the cycles are going to be like generally speaking for the next 50 years give or take. refusing to take into account this knowledge is just more evidence that gwa are not willing to accept anything buy that man is the culpret.

Man is the culprit, that doesn't mean there are other culprits we don't know about.
Gaia, as she responds to her victim-hood, teaches us as she goes.

The post 9/11 warming is a great example, after no contrail for several days. (My sky, under the eastcoast flyway,was the glorious BLUE I recall from my childhood)

I fear there may be unknown atmospheric tipping points with GHG's interactions with these new space weather connections.

It will be interesting to see what effect the implementation of the "Open Sky" air travel regime will have on contrail global dimming.

you see, this is the problem. Its very easy to say this, but then in sciencific terms you have to have proof. So far all the proof is that there is some heating and some cooling, but is it a natual part of the solar system, or is it something that man has caused. And yes, i did say solar system because they now have proof that the sun is as much responisible for climate changes as anything else. I strongly suspect (my opinion) the magnetic field is partially responsible, and its been shown to be fluxing now. (sorry this was something i saw on tv, so i dont have a link to any study, if they exist, on connection between magnetic field fluxuation and climate changes.)

So once again its a matter of proving it. News stories written to sell subscriptions are most definately not proof. So far the only "evidence" is models that are somewhat questionable.

Yes, the magnetic field is decreasing; to the point they think we're heading into a reversal. At least that's what I've heard on TV.
~Sam

it changes every so many thousands of years, and its time for a change. unfortunately, that can mean major problems for the human race, not the least of which is from climate changes, that might be caused by the flux.

Whether climate changes every 10 years or 10,000 years is irrelevant.

It is now the hottest it has been in 3,000,000 years and the proximate cause is staring at you in your mirror.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

only if the sun is behind you and has sunglasses on.

the evidence says that the temperature was a degree warmer before the little ice age, yet this fact is some how forgotten when they make claims like this.

dehammer wrote:
"the evidence says that the temperature was a degree warmer before the little ice age, yet this fact is some how forgotten when they make claims like this."

Back at it again making up facts eh? Well once again I'd like to see you point to REAL research that supports your statement.

And once again you won't ... because you can't.

What a waste of perfectly good electrons.

PS: The reason you can't is that air temperatures are irrelevant and that is all they could measure during the little ice age. What matters is the heat sinks ... the oceans. And the ocean data does not support your statement.

so where is the evidence that the ocean was colder before the little ice age than it is now?

dehammer asks:
"so where is the evidence that the ocean was colder before the little ice age than it is now?"

You posted this in response to my request that you:
"Back at it again making up facts eh? Well once again I'd like to see you point to REAL research that supports your statement."

No game playing dehammer. You put up a link substantiating what you wrote. Then, and only then, will I prove you are incorrect.

I grow increasingly weary of your ability to state things as fact without a shred of supporting evidence and then expect others to do what you won't do yourself. Last time I checked Wicca does not teach what you are practicing.

roflol, you make a unsubstaciated claim that the water was cooler back then just because they did not measure it, then you want me to prove that it was the same relative temperature as it always is. Im saying that the relation of the temperature of the water to the air was the same as it is now, and you want me to prove that it was.

why not admit that there is no scientific evidence to back up your completely bogus statement.

I dont have to prove things were natural. you have to prove that they were unnatural.

dehammer:
"why not admit that there is no scientific evidence to back up your completely bogus statement."

Look in the mirror and repeat the above. You made the first claim and I challenged it. So you first.

As I said ... I don't see where Wicca teaches what you practice.

i pointed out that they had evidence that the air was warmer than it is now, and you said something about how the ocean was cooler, despite it being warmer. why would the ocean be cooler when the rest of the world was warmer. that does not make sence. then you demanded that i prove that the ocean was no cooler than normal when the rest of the world was warmer. If the world was warmer, and evidence shows it was, what evidence is there that the ocean was cooler relatively speaking, than it is now. there is no logic that the ocean would grow relatively cooler while the earth gradually warms. please explain your logic.

you really should have gone into politics. your ability to baffle with bull droppings would have gotten you president at least.

dehammer wrote:
"i pointed out that they had evidence that the air was warmer than it is now"

You pointed?

You can wave your hands in the air wildly and throw tinsel and it won't make it so.

Where's a link to the study and the researchers that performed it?

i tried to show this to you once but you refused to discuss it since it was done on a website that was owned by a man who worked for the oil companies many years ago. You said what would a geologist know about tree rings, despite the fact that the article was written by dendrochronologist (someone who studies tree rings) and showed that the same data that showed the mideval warming also showed it occured in japan at the same time. those who claim that it was did not happen claim that it was only a localize event.

IF your going to ignore links due to them not being the correct political site, why should i post them.

why not look up Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and see if you can find any site that you are willing to read to see what they say.

even michal mann admits it happen, but he claims it only happen in europe so it could not be global. If it happen in japan, and India and europe then its most likely global.

dehammer wrote:
"i tried to show this to you once but you refused to discuss it"

No you didn't. You didn't try to show anything. There was no reference to a study either by URL or ISBN or any other reference.

Disagree? Ok then who was the author?
Where was it published?
When was it published?

Please demonstrate a modicum of integrity by either providing the information required for me to find what you "showed" or to admit no such information exists.

im trying to find where i wrote it before, but i cant find it with google. appearantly its too far back or something.

here is some of the evidence that japan was warmer

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

heres another site if you believe tree rings are good to show temperature changes.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279h.html

many of the global warming alarmist evidence is based on tree rings. so if its good enough to show global warming, then its good enough to show the medival warming period.

this is the site that had the article on it that i refereced once before. im sure that once again youll refuse to acknowledge their data since some of them once worked for an oil company, so they must be getting paid for it :rolleyes: .

http://www.co2science.org

one of their articles is here

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N42/C3.jsp

Quote:

it is followed by equally intense cooling, such that by 1998 (the supposedly warmest year of the past two millennia, according to the world's climate alarmists), temperatures are implied to be less than they were during the Medieval Warm Period.

since 1998 is suppose to have been hotter than 2005, then that means it too is not as intense a summer as the medieval warming period.

heres another one talking about the medieval warming period being hotter than today

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

heres some of what he wrote.

Quote:

In the Sargasso Sea (an area popularly known as the `Bermuda Triangle'), radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in sea bed sediments by L. Keigwin [12] demonstrates that sea surface temperatures were around 2?F cooler than today around 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age), and around 2?F warmer than today 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). In addition, the data also demonstrates that the period before 500 BC (the so-called Holocene Climatic Optimum) saw temperatures up to 4?F warmer - and without any greenhouse gas component to cause it. (See Fig.6 below)

Finally dehammer ... finally.

Lets consider first your first reference. Did you read it? Did you notice it was first published in 1995? That means it is at least 12 years old. Did you notice it was published by the Hoover Institution? Do you know what the Hoover Institution is?

Probably not so I'll help you with this one:
http://www.hoover.org
Go to their web site.
Now click on "About Hoover"
Now read their own description of themselves

"The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is a public policy research center devoted to advanced study of politics, economics, and political economy?both domestic and foreign?as well as international affairs."

Do you see the word science there?
How about the word climatology?
How about the word meteorology?
How about the word research?

I didn't either.

Want me to kick the dust out of hyour other references or can you take a hint?

Not one of them comes from a researcher or research lab. I asked you to point to any evidence that supported your posturing. You pointed to other people posturing. Do you understand what we do at universities? We you understand the concept of academic freedom? Do you understand the concept of peer review? It would seem not.

once again, you refuse to consider a links content, simply because the link is run by a political organization that is does not follow the path your religion deems proper.

how is it that these type of articles are ok for you to use, but yet, not acceptable as counter arguements.

considering that we are discussing something that happen a thousand years ago, i dont see whats wrong with a paper written 11 years ago. are you going to tell us that the medieval warming period changed in 11 year? Are you going to tell us that the evidence changed? if so prove it.



do you understand the concept of censorship. it would appear to many that those in charge of the peer review are doing so.

dehammer wrote:
"once again, you refuse to consider a links content"

I considered the content: Seriously. Because had you actually provided a link to any researcher who did actual work and had expertise in the field I would have felt compelled to address the points with great care.

What you did was posture by pointing to posturing making it easy for me to discredit what you posted.

Do you understand the difference between being a Texan and wearing a hat and boots? Same difference.

Where's the beef?

actually, this is not the first time i pointed out some of those sites. once again you have failed to discuss the topic i linked to. instead you insist that they cant be discussed because of where the sites are.

this is why i stop posting links.

I don't discuss topics ... I discuss science.

There are only two possibilities here dehammer.

1. You are incapable of finding links to actual research that supports your statements.

2. Actual research supporting your statements does not exist.

Which is it?

roflol.

we have asked you for the research data, and you give news articles. yet according to you, these news articles are proof enough.

we give you the identical stuff, plus stuff from university libraries, and you claim that is not good enough.

from now on, any time you give a news articles, im going to quote you back at you.

dehammer wrote:
"we give you the identical stuff, plus stuff from university libraries, and you claim that is not good enough."

You've never once done so. I scanned the last three months of your posts here dehammer. Not once a science related reference and not once a reference from a university library.

(yes you've provided a few links but they were essentially worthless such as hoover.org)

Please demonstrate some integrity. Post a single "real" link that refutes the NASA work. Here ... refute this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061019162746.htm

DA Morgan
posted 10-22-2006 03:55 PM
I don't discuss topics ... I discuss science.

There are only two possibilities here dehammer.

1. You are incapable of finding links to actual research that supports your statements.

2. Actual research supporting your statements does not exist.

Which is it?


science daily is a news site. not a real link to hard data. show some integrity and either accept equal sites or dont bother posting it.

I wrote:
"There are only two possibilities here dehammer.

1. You are incapable of finding links to actual research that supports your statements.

2. Actual research supporting your statements does not exist."

You've answered the question haven't you. The only link you are capable of posting is mine. The sciencedaily website specific pointed to researchers which anyone not terminally lazy would have found using google in less than five seconds.

Like I said ... you've answered the question. I was really hoping you'd surprise me.

i posted links yet you refuse to discuss them because they dont support your arguement.

you post things that are of the same nature, yet you claim they are scientific.

Either ours are good enough for you to discuss, or yours are not good enough to discuss for us to discuss.

which is it.

dehammer wrote:
"posted links yet you refuse to discuss them because they dont support your arguement."

http://www.mickeymouse.com is a link and I would ignore it too.

Your links were not to science sites ... they were to political sites ... in other words ... Mickey Mouse.

Don't you know the difference?

Dan, please restrain yourself. I like the site but it is not appropriate.

Amaranth

the problem is that you dont know the difference.

there is no difference between the sites i posted, and the ones you site, save that they are on different sides of the issue. If they are good enough for you to use, they are good enough for us to use. if they are mickey mouse for us, they are mickey mouse for you.

which are they. are political opinions ok for both sides, or for neither?

it cant be both ok for you to use opinionated political orientated news articles and us to not us to use the same type. If its not ok for us to use opinionated political orientated news articles, its not ok for you either.

either accept ours, or stop posting yours. If you want to discuss pure science, give links to the hard, raw, unaltered data. If your going to discuss the political opinions of others, then our links political agendas are as acceptables as the ones from the links you provide.

now are we going to discuss science, or we going to discuss the political opinions. Personally, i really dont have any desire to discuss the political opinions of the articles that you post any more than you obiously dont want to discuss the political opinions of the ones i posted.

you constantly get on others for being a troll, so why not stop being one yourself.

dehammer wrote:
"the problem is that you dont know the difference."

Last time I checked I was the one with the BS degree who worked in the lab for 6 years and now teach at a major research university. I do know the difference.

If you think the Hoover Institute at Stanford is a valuable place to find information about science then this conversation is over.

Last word is yours.

translation for those who dont speak political speak

"im caught in a postion of accepting politial sites that are against my political leaning, or giving up linking to political sites of my leaning. since i cant do either, ill claim victory and hope no one noticed that i lost the arguement."

Regarding the original topic:
Has anyone looked at the field reversal record and glaciations to see if there is any match-up?

Been busy (kids, bills, TV) and just finished watching NOVA (PBS). They had examples from 16Mya geo. records of the Earth's magnetic field failing (80-90%) for up to 3000 yr.; shifting by 6 degrees/day (when stronger); the possibility of 4 or even 8 "poles" wandering, even near equatorial latitudes; and they did mention COSMIC RAYS would also increase during reversals. They even cited a figure of 15 extra cancer deaths/million. So I guess magnetic field does affect cosmic rays.
A lot of NOVA's info came from a multi-year supercomputer run of a model core, but the geo. data backed it up. I remember this on the cover of Nature a few years ago (Science too, I think).
Nice graphics; thanks NOVA

Enjoy,
~Sam

P.S. Tomorrow, PBS Secrets of the Dead, explores a VOLCANIC "nuclear winter" scenario; I think it might be TOBA, but maybe it's just generic.
~S

Yes , NOVA was great, I was waiting the whole show for them to at least mention the weather connection.

I wonder if there is some method to determine the suns long term magnetic field strength history?

Toba, is that the one 70,000 years ago that took the world population down to a few thousand?

More interesting grist for the Plasma/weather interactions:

Cluster makes turbulent breakthrough

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/7

Yes, Toba = 70Kya
~WRONG! TV show was:
Turned out to be Krakatoa ~535AD

~Sam

Here is a great blog analyzing the press release from the " league of Danish global warming deniers, aka the Danish Space Center"


http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/svensmark-stumbles-into-smog-chamber.html

so what your saying is that the experiments were not valid because the density was higher in the chamber than in the atmosphere. this despite the fact that the atomphere is several hundred times bigger and the over all radiation is several hundred times more than in the chamber.

a blog is written by anyone, so does that mean that anyone has a better understanding than the person that has a higher education in that area?

its a very common scientific practice to use a higher density chamber to simulate a larger area and to get the results faster. so does the fact that this blogger have a problem with that mean that we have do throw out all the scientific advances created this way to suit him?

dehammer,
I didn?t read everything, but it sounds as if point of the blog is to say they didn?t test the mechanism in real-world conditions and that they didn?t look at other possible mechanisms. Therefore, they can?t make any claims about the magnitude of the effect or the relative contribution (given other possible mechanisms).
For that point, this may be true; but taken together with the statistical observations that started this thread, it is suggestive that the results of the Danish experiment may be pointing at a real world mechanism of noticeable magnitude. Granted, just because we observe the effect they suggest, it doesn?t prove causality. Suggestive, but more study is needed, eh?

~samwik

Try as people might you can not repeal the laws of physics just because you disagree with them.

When things get warmer certain chemical reactions accelerate. That isn't my opinion ... that is the law.

Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere trap infrared radiation. That isn't my opinion ... that is the law.

Essentially the naysayers can either claim to have repealed the laws of physics or they must accept that these things are happening. The only thing left in question is the magnitude.

This debate is quite frankly no different from the one about whether cigarettes cause cancer: They do. They did when the tobacco companies denied it. They did when they tried to hide it with "lite" cigarettes, they do today, and they will tomorrow.

As Dostoevsky wrote:
"Nature doesn't consult you; it doesn't give a damn for your wishes or whether its laws please you or do not please you. You must accept it as it is...."

"The only thing left in question is the magnitude." -DA

I agree with what you said, and since I was talking magnitude, was that addressed to my comment? Maybe I didn't get the tone right. Would this last sentence have changed your reply to my comment: "Very, very suggestive, but more study is needed, eh? (I asked sarcastically)

That's overemphasizing a bit, but the right direction.

oh, and re: "The only thing left in question is the magnitude."
Direction is also important, because humans produce both heating and cooling pollutants.

Thanks,
~samagain

After reading a little deeper into Rabett's blog.......... this Real Climate discussion has comments from Martin B Enghoff the author of the paper that started this thread.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

samwik asks:
"and since I was talking magnitude, was that addressed to my comment?"

No. I was in support of what you wrote. Should have made that clearer.

I did not read every word of it myself, but did pay attension to what he was saying about how the test was done and all of his complaints about it.

basically, in order to have something real world conditions you have to have it more in the real world. this works find as long as the subject is in small confined area, say cows in a pasture, but not well when the subject is the atmosphere and radiation. in order to test the levels of radiation in the real world, it would be necissary to put a large part of the world at risk, and no scientist is going to try that and publish the info. Using methods such as these is common practice when you are trying to discover things in a relatively short time and cant do things in the real world. had they somehow done it in the real world, it would have cost easily 1000 times as much, taking several decades and not been as certain of all the varibles being accounted for.

yes, more research is needed, but the conclusion are not wrong just because of that.

did galileo change the laws of physics?

did issac newton change the laws of physics?

they made the laws more known. they did not change them.

they have discovered that different types of clouds will either cool or warm the earth, depending on their altitude, brightness and many other factors we dont yet know of.

there has been proven a link between the cosmic radiation we recieve from space and lower level clouds. while the amount of radiation from stars dont vary that much, the amount of material thrown out by the sun from solar flares does vary a lot. it is also a proven fact that the material from the flares blocks the cosmic radiation to the same degree that of the material (ie, the more material thrown out, the more cr is blocked).

the result is that when there is more solar flare activity, the clouds form in the lower atmosphere more causing a warming, and dont form higher level clouds as much. the reverse is true too. When there is a lower level of flares, more radiation causes higher level clouds to form, causing more solar energy to be reflected, causing a cooling period.

while the affect might not be noticable as such in a given area, the global affect can be very striking.

for many years its been evident that the solar flares had major effect on the weather, but since there was no direct link between them GWA's refused to accept that the sun was the cause of the warming. they claimed that the solar activity did not have any effect. now that the link has been found, they are doing their best to deny that it is real.

Hate to Quote myself, but I finished this long Real Climate thread and they have this topic covered! I strongly suggest all to read it.

one big problem i have with that site is that they claim that there is no evidence of a lowering of cosmic radiation. yet there have been ice core samples that show a change in it. there is evidence of something corrilating the changes in global temperature with the variations in the solar activities.

they say the effect would be very small, yet they also claim that the tiny amount of co2 warming the planet is responsible for a humongus change. If a small change in co2 can cause that much of a change, why cant a small amount of change in how much of the high level clouds are caused by cosmic radiation. Appearantly it only takes a small change in the atmosphere to have a major change, so why cant this small change have as much of an effect as the tiny change in co2.

A little OT.......but these measurments do provide a field history 800,000 years ago and implies stability of geodynamo processes on billion-year timescales.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7115/edsumm/e061102-05.html

dehammer asks:
"If a small change in co2 can cause that much of a change, why cant a small amount of change in how much of the high level clouds are caused by cosmic radiation."

Because the laws of physics are the laws of physics. They work as they work. The fact that they don't please you will not cause them to change with or without the intervention of prayer.

so the people that refused to look thought galileo's telescope because it showed laws of phyics that they did not want to accept should have been accepted at their words that the laws of physics that galileo was suggesting was not right?

just because you dont accept that there are laws of physics that disagree with you does not mean that they are not there. simply stating that this cant happen does not prevent it from doing so. saying that you dont accept that fact that distance stars, in conjuntion with our sun, can affect our weather does not mean that they dont.

you cant rant and rave about the laws of physics, but ignoring some of them does not preclude them from existing.



this applys to you as well.

dehammer wrote:
"so the people that refused to look thought galileo's telescope because it showed laws of phyics that they did not want to accept should have been accepted at their words that the laws of physics that galileo was suggesting was not right?"

Even you don't believe what you just wrote is what I meant. Give it a break!

of course i did not believe that, but appearantly from your older post, you do. you act as if all laws of physics are known, and all the things that act on the atmosphere are known. that is the atitude that those that belittle galileo showed. they "knew" all their was to know of physics and did not want to admit that there were things in space that did not follow their preconcieved notions. you are doing the exact thing.

you claim that its a proven fact that the co2 is causing the problems when the only "proof" is models that dont work well without constant alterations. You and others have claimed that the suns solar flares had no effect on the weather, but now they have shown how it can.

your response to that proof is, "Because the laws of physics are the laws of physics. They work as they work. The fact that they don't please you will not cause them to change with or without the intervention of prayer."

im sure there were some around galileo that made the equilant response to him.

DAM wrote:
"Even you don't believe what you just wrote is what I meant."

to which dehammer responded:
"of course i did not believe that, but appearantly from your older post, you do."

No point in my disagreeing with you as in a single sentence you just disagreed with yourself. Ouch!

can you not see the question mark at the end of that sentence? that was a question, retorical in nature. Of course, i did not believe it, but it was intended to show you where your attitude was going.

you had the same attitude that those people had in galileo's time. That being, "if you dont know a law of physics, it cant exist". You claim that just because you dont see who something works it cant. The laws of physics dont care wheither or not you can understand them, they work the same way irregardless. denying they exist doesnt stop them from happening. There is a proven connection between solar activity and global warming/cooling. It does not matter wheither you accept this or not, its there. Now they know how it does it. Claiming that the laws of physics dont allow it, is just the same as the people around galileo refusing to look though the telescope because they didnt believe the laws of physics allowed what it showed.

stop being a politician and trying to claim white is black.

dehammer spins:
"can you not see the question mark at the end of that sentence?"

Here is the sentence in question:
"of course i did not believe that, but appearantly from your older post, you do. you act as if all laws of physics are known, and all the things that act on the atmosphere are known. that is the atitude that those that belittle galileo showed. they "knew" all their was to know of physics and did not want to admit that there were things in space that did not follow their preconcieved notions. you are doing the exact thing."

... and the sentences following it for the entire paragraph. Do you?

as usually, when you are proven to be wrong you misdirect. why didnt you go into politics. your extreamly good at hiding things in plain sight.

here is the real statement were discussing.

do you see the question mark there. that is the rhetorical question i mentioned. of course no one believes this but you have the same attitude.

But that's not the one I was responding too.

Good try but no cigar!

thats the one you quote before, and the one i refered to. that is the one that you were making fun of, so its the one we are discussing.

good try but once again you didnt misdirect.

Please pay attention dehammer:

posted November 02, 2006 06:34 PM by DA Morgan
"Even you don't believe what you just wrote is what I meant."

and you responded:
posted November 03, 2006 02:09 AM
of course i did not believe that

===================================

Thank you.
Enough said.
Didn't your mother teach you to accept responsibility?
Please don't try to weasel out of it.
You acknowledged your own lack of belief in your words.
End of story.

But if you really must get in the last word by all means do so as my participation in this thread is ended.

lets get the whole thing out


see that is the comment we are discussing. not your failed attempt to misdirect. try as you can. its not the fact that i did not beleive that those who disagreed with galileo should have been listened to. I put a question mark on the end and of course you ignored it. I was asking if you believed it. you act as though you do.

now do you want to keep this childist attempt to misdirect or do you want to act like an adult and get back to the subject.

dehammer wrote:
"see that is the comment we are discussing."

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

No dehammer ... that is what YOU are discussing: Not WE. WE means two people and I know precisely what I was commenting upon.

The only thing WE have been doing is MISCOMMUNICATING. In my opinion intentionally on your part.

And now, no matter what you write here, I will not respond so last words are yours.

If da is finished trying to misdirect this, can we get back to the discussion



I believe we were discussing the fact that its been shown that cosmic radiation causes clouds to form higher and brighter, thus cooling the planet, and that solar flares send out material that deflected, reflected or dispersed in some manner the cosmic radiation before it reaches the earth. This allows the clouds to form lower and darker, causing the earth to warm up.

this is the missing link that global warming alarmist have been trying for years to deny as unproven between solar flare activity and earths cooling and warming.

Wow,

Just How Bad Can a Thread Get?

Silly me didn't look at this thread because I thought it must have been going along happily discussing something about space and clouds.

Huh, what it is, is a really petty thread full of name calling and tit for tat posts. I'm pretty sure it has achieved nothing unless both Dan and dehammer relieve their frustrations by having this sort of argument. In amongst all this some real questions were asked that didn't get discussed. That is a shame.

Dan I sort of understand but dehammer, may I ask why you kept responding?


Suggestion for a Repeat Thread

Its all a great pity because when I looked at the topic, it really is interesting. Perhaps Erich could post both the original thread and the couple of other interesting posts again and a real discussion could occur. I wonder if we could ban Dan and dehammer from just that thread, even if it is not necessarily both of their faults.

This is just a terrible thread and it has annoyed me just how little it discussed science, despite it being a very interesting topic that deserved some discussion.

I seem to have become a real spoilsport lately on this forum, constantly complaining. But I really like this forum and most of the time the discussions are great, even with Dan participating. But this type of thread is no fun at all.


Regards


Richard

Here, here, RicS

I have this thread going in other forums, the best are:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47939

As I posted before, these two blogs really cover the topic:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/svensmark-stumbles-into-smog-chamber.html

If I weren't so embarrased by Dan & dehammer's sophmoric prattle I would post this disscusion to other forums also.

I kept responding because i was hoping that dan was not just trying to derail the thread and trying to get him to discuss the point. of course he refused.

erich knight, to get back to what i was trying to say before, yes they did use things that were a good bit different that in the atmosphere, mainly because of: 1)time: it takes a long time to wait for the amount of data from the atmosphere, so they make the tank a bit faster by increasing the reactants. 2) danger: increasing the radiation to test the results in the open atmosphere would put people at risk. 3) fewer varibles: its hard to keep track of all the varibles in the open atmosphere, but most of them can be illiminated in a tank. That makes it easier to see exactly what is happening with just that one set of varibles.

I have a problem with the way they used the press release, but the data does show that there is considerable change in the radiation, what those graphs dont show is the connection between the radiation and solar flare.

it is known that solar flares do have some effect on global warming, but the people that do the climate modeling refuse to imput it, because there was no known method of the two interacting. now its known how they do.

Again i appologies for not realising sooner that dan was simply trying to derail the proper discussion.

The current Economist has an article:

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8074812

Interesting article Erich. But I do find one thing troubling:
"Physicists also think that such clouds would be brighter and more reflective than normal clouds. So they would cool the Earth by hanging around and by reflecting more heat from the sun back into space."

Were these clouds more reflective ... they would also be more visible. I've seen a lot of pictures of earth from space ... where are they?

Wow, real science.

My understanding of "reflectivity" of clouds isn't that they appear nice and shiny only what they do to the spectru of light as it hits them. Visual images would be nice but this does not prevent the theory from being reasonable.

How about starting over in a new thread?


Richard

the theory is that they would appear more when the solar activity is lowest, which causes the cooling.

1) we are appearant in the heating part of the cycle

2) we are at a fairly high level of solar activity, and have been for several decades.

how would the pictures from space show clouds that have been lessened by solar activity for the same (longer actually) time the pictures have been being taken.

RicS wrote:
"My understanding of "reflectivity" of clouds isn't that they appear nice and shiny"

That isn't my understanding either. But one of the first lessons in high school physics is the meaning of reflection. That which reflects a greater percentage of light is brighter.

If that is the case. That these clouds are more reflective ... where's the reflected light? That is just a question ... not a value judgement.

1) its possible to make something highly reflective, yet be completely black to the naked eye. Its possible that the spectrums that the clouds reflect are more along the lines of infrared, or other spectrums that the human eye does not see, and still be able to reflect more of the energy of the sun.

2) we are currently in, and have been for some time, a period where these clouds would not form as often or as much.

If the theory is correct, once the solar activity dies down, they will be visible more often and much more of them. this would cause a much higher rate of cooling, than current times. If we are indeed (and i see no reason to believe were not) in a period of global warming, then this could just as easy reverse that after the high levels of solar activity passes.