Take a cloud chamber (basically a sealed box with water-saturated air,) and send electrically charged particles through it. What happens? Moisture forms. Clouds.
Why does this matter?
It matters because, as this six-part video documentary explains in full, this high school physics experiment is the point of departure for an exhaustively researched and experiment-verified theory for global climate change conducted by a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark.
Svensmark, in the early 1990's, found a relationship between cosmic rays and the amount of cloud cover on Earth. The term "cosmic rays" sounds like something out of a Roger Ramjet cartoon, but they really are just atomic particles that result from star activity (such as exploding stars) in the cosmos.
So, cosmic rays are bombarding the Earth at all times, to one extent or another. Because our solar system is in the Milky Way galaxy, most of the cosmic rays that hit Earth originate from Milky Way star activity. In fact, our solar system circles the Milky Way in a 250 million year orbit.
Because the Milky Way is a "spiral galaxy" with "arms" that protrude from a rough center, this 250 million year orbit takes our solar system through vast relatively empty spaces in the galaxy followed by vast periods when we pass through one of the "arms."
This is important because when the solar system is in one of the "arms," cosmic ray activity is much higher than when it passes through one of the empty areas.
Svensmark, as I said, found a relationship between cosmic ray activity and low cloud formation. But he didn't know the link. He also found a relationship between the intensity of our sun's magnetic field (which fluctuates based on surface activity) and cosmic rays hitting the Earth.
The video tells what he found, through almost two decades of research. Fascinating, and very damning for the AGW crowd who spent years trying to block his research from being published in the peer-reviewed journals and from being funded from the usual scientific research sources.
The sun's magnetic activity acts as somewhat of a shield from galactic cosmic rays. The more magnetic activity, the fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth. That means the more solar activity, the less cloud cover.
Cloud cover is a huge determinant of climate because low clouds reflect solar energy away from the Earth surface. So Svensmark's finding turns out to be a complete and logical alternative to the CO2 global warming theory.
Solar magnetic activity ===> Determines level of cosmic rays ===> determines low cloud cover ===> determines global temperature.
The 52 minute video explains how Svensmark verified the theory, and shows the startlingly close relationship between cosmic ray levels and global temperature, which is valid both on a geologic time scale and on a human time scale.
It also shows Svensmark's frustration with the scientific community that tried to block his theory and his experiments from being published.
Fascinating stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I'll watch that as soon as I can. Sounds interesting. Thanks, Rob, for explaining it and posting it.
You think this theory and the data that support it is more convincing than the CO2/AGW hypothesis that says an atmospheric gas necessary for life on Earth, which is shown to lag increases in global temperature, and which has been in far higher concentrations in periods of geologic history without the kind of warming predicted by the models, and which has continued to increase in the last decade even though global temperature has not, which is also unexplained by the current climate models, is the actual cause of warming?
OK, you stupid denier!
It's bad science.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/03/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/
I guess it's back to the drawing board for you deniers.
Again, it's hard to imagine the hubris of people who are willing to risk a global catastrophe in a bet against the vast majority of climate scientists.
If those scientists are right, and we do nothing because of you, imagine how you'll be viewed in 100 years, or 200 years.
And, putting the email furor into perspective:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html
Deniers would have us believe people who have already been shown to be misrepresenting the facts.
RR,
What an idiotic comment. You keep harping on "bad science" when in point of fact you have no clue because you've never done science.
Now, falsification of data is bad. It's also not science. But that's what we find in the CRU data dump, the IPCC, and other sources that have been behind the scam known as Antropogenic Global Warming.
If you have a working brain, then you can put a few things in there:
The planet has been around for about 4.6 billion years. Human like critters have been around for about 120,000 years.
250 years ago, everybody rode horses, or in wagons pulled by horse or ox-power.
In the last 200 years, we developed technology.
And don't you think it's the least little bit arrogant to claim that the survival of the planet depends upon us? If you don't, you're an idiot.
I like that you warmers can call upon distinguished material from Wired and Discover. Way to be.
I've been working in zoology and chemistry for over 35 years - likely since before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. I suggest that it would be helpful to you to actually take the time to study the issues, although I grant that that would involve a certain amount of effort on your part.
OK, RR-
So there is an empirical challenge to the implications of this theory that appear to point out major inconsistencies to the theory: 1) Cosmic rays, they say, should affect high altitudes more than low altitudes, but the theory shows correlation only between low clouds. and 2) they say cosmic rays are channeled to the polar regions by the Earth's magnetism, and we don't see more clouds at those longitudes.
I don't know if these are insurmountable or not - I would be interested in the Svensmark's response, if any.
But I do find interesting that I have never see you, nor all the warming alarmists, ever worry about the GLARING inconsistencies in the AGW hypothesis.
For instance: Increases in CO2 PRECEEDS increases in temperature.
Even in that famous graph AlGore himself uses in his slide show - what he didn't reveal was that that very graph refutes his theory. (He of course hid the fact that there was a huge lag in the correlation in his graph, in which increases in CO2 lead temperature by a few hundred years.
So you are so quick to point out that at least one scientific paper has pointed out some seeming incongruencies in the cosmic ray theory. That is interesting and I want to learn more about it.
But I just never see that kind of intellectual curiousity about the problems in your own theory.
Just sayin'.
Rob, theories don't show anything, data do. Theories are explanations of data.
I've seen this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
It claims that temperature increases precede increases in CO2, but when I look at the graph, it looks like the blue line (CO2) is leading the red line (temperature).
Perhaps you have access to better data than this.
Holy shit! Did you really write that, Roadrunner?
You presume to teach Rob that theories aren't data? THAT's your contribution here? You think Rob wrote something that suggests he doesn't understand that?
Where? Where did he say anything that would suggest anything of the sort? Reading over his post and his comments, it seems pretty clear to me that he presents this theory, and talks about how the video shows how the guy "verified" the theory. Doesn't sound confused about this little point of yours at all.
And then Rob talks about the CO2/Temperature DATA - and points out that it contradicts the AGW theory.
So you respond by telling him that "theories aren't data?"
Are you really that dim?
Roadrunner said... It claims that temperature increases precede increases in CO2, but when I look at the graph, it looks like the blue line (CO2) is leading the red line (temperature).
Perhaps you have access to better data than this.
JK: Yeah I do. Its is even from Al Gore's advisers at RealClimate:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)
------------------------
Since a cause cannot follow the event that is supposed to have caused, this is powerful evidence that CO2 does NOT cause major warming. Further, there appear to be no studies that prove that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming in the real world.
(please don’t accuse me of leaving out the rest of this quote - the rest is classic example of the illogic that infests the warmer’s case.)
You presume to teach Rob that theories aren't data? THAT's your contribution here? You think Rob wrote something that suggests he doesn't understand that?
Well, gee, amused, Rob wrote this:
the theory shows.
Jim K., did you click on the link for "a fuller exposition of this on a more recent post."?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
First of all, saying “historically” is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.
Not everyone thinks this is bad science, apparently.
Check Jasper Kirby's talk at CERN outlining the "paleoclimatatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate".
video available here: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
A background news story on Dr. Kirby here: http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
RR has disgraced himself way too many times to be taken seriously in dialog. That what happens with union-paid 'bat crappers, especially the Warmist posers. And now that ClimateGate blew the lid off the hoax, they are exposed as the collectivist, H8ing fraud-selling rent-seekers they really are. But RR maintains the audacity of hope that he will be believed and respected. Shame.
Let's see, I've never been employed by a union. You know what they say when you assume.
And I guess I have "disgraced" myself because I point out that the behavior of many right-wingers on blogs would get them sent to the corner in kindergarten.
And that right-wingers are willing to risk a catastrophe in a bet that the majority of climate scientists are absolutely wrong.
"right-wingers are willing to risk a catastrophe in a bet that the majority of climate scientists are absolutely wrong."
This is interesting. We could be wrong. That's true and bad things would happen.
But you alarmists could also be wrong and trillions would be wasted and economic activity slowed at the cost of millions of lives (especially in third world countries).
So if you're wrong, do we get to arrest you all and put you in prison for the rest of your life for the EVIL fraud you perpetrated on the world and the FREEDOM you stole?
Just askin'
I'll take your bet. Loser goes to jail.
Finally, something we call all agree on. Warmist snake-oil salesmen like RR - paid to crap on conservative blogs like typical moveon.com nutroots - are indeed a disgrace. Double-shame.
I suppose it's an honor of sorts to be called a "disgrace" for posting actual facts and reason, and not simply resorting to name-calling.
By the way, it's moveon.org, I'm not a member and have never been paid a penny by them. Or by anyone else for blogging or commenting.
Hey Rob,
Why don't you call out your allies who make false accusations and seem capable only of name-calling and incapable of a real discussion on YOUR blog?
Why would anyone trust their kids to someone who isn't even capable of suggesting adult behavior on his blog?
save your breath, Roadrunner, you're teaching to stagnant minds. like a high school teacher explaining algebra to pre-schoolers - their brains are unequipped with information and unconnected in structured-thought integrity.
it's over anyway since the group of deniers is the small-percentage slow-witted minority, and being the ineffectual bystanders, that group can only follow along or get out of the way, which, in this case, probably means dropping dead denying themselves a place and participation in public decisions and doings. they jump overboard; the ship of state sails on.
+ + +
Plus, here's the ignorance in Kremer's goofy post:
What are the visualized "arms" of the galaxy composed of? Answer: distributed stars. (moving in formation, in fixed relationships with other stars in the vicinity according to local gravitational field strength and phase - the galaxy's gravity's 'holding' consistency explains why 'arms' form in the first place, at all, and explains why one of the stars seen in the Big Dipper, or Orion's Belt, NEVER 'wanders off' and gets out-of-line from the fixed pattern it is in)
What are the visualized "empty spaces in the galaxy"? Answer: regions between 'arms' where no stars are.
As science-less Kooky Kremer 'explains' then, our star Helios towing his 9-planet Solar System in a 250-million-year orbit around the (Milky Way) galaxy center, takes an urge now and then to break loose from his formation position in one of the arms and suddenly races ahead (or dawdles behind) and gets into "vast relatively empty spaces in the galaxy."
It's just so refreshing to get a break away from the repetitive boring habit of the gravity in the neighborhood.
Also it is commonly mythically known that Earth's own moon Selene goes on vacation every million years or so, getting away from the stresses and strains of her occupation in Earth's gravity field, to visit relatives in the asteroid belt out toward Mars for a couple millenniums, and then she comes home and gets back to work in her Earth orbit, lifting the ocean tides twice daily, sprouting hairy antisocial ignominy one night a month on the faces of lunatics.
A wacko as entertaining as Kremer deserves to be talking on the radio teaching illiterate impressionable pre-schoolers the Wonders of Self-Extinction Catastrophe Denial - "follow rube Rob: jump overboard, kiddies."
lol... wut?
Mostly incoherent, but anonymous, it sounds like maybe you're suggesting "the science might not be settled" at least when it comes to astronomy anyway.
The stars being fixed in the heavens for all eternity is not the current working hypothesis (I won't say disproven, since we agree science is never settled).
cheers, and Merry Christmas all!
There's a chance you're qualified for a new government solar energy rebate program.
Click here and find out if you qualify now!
Post a Comment