The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Mankind 'can't influence' climate  (Read 10715 times)

Offline sgt minor

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« on: 07/05/2007 11:09:24 »
g'day all,
fantastic site ;)...i'm learning lots but i was confused by this article, written by a geologist :o...
newbielink:http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21543358-5001024,00.html [nonactive]

is this as much true as it is put to confound people? I am led to think that man (or woman) is contributing much to climate change, can anyone help point out possible oversights in the article..if they exist?

cheers
anthony ;D


 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #1 on: 07/05/2007 11:51:17 »
Think the truth is in the middle, as usual - we can ruin our microclimate by pollution etc, but indeed on the larger scale of things there's also changes solar activity, which plays a huge role too, and over which we have 0 percent influence, it's way out of our control.
And indeed, there was a documentary on Channel 4 recently that also advocates the statistics that make CO2 changes FOLLOW solar activitiy, meaning we could well be on a wild goosechase there, and there's essentially not a thing we can really do about it - or even should *try* maybe - since ANY short-term disturbance by us humans *can* have undesirable sideeffects - we *can* make life unbearable for ourselves, temporarily - and nature finding its balance again after we're extinct is very little consolation. Sending 747's with other gases up into the atmosphere, like some people dreamed up as a solution, could have disastrous unforeseen and *immediate* side-effects, I mean. We're total noobs at this, and any *confident* scientist most likely a fool.
 

jolly

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #2 on: 07/05/2007 21:08:22 »
Solar activity a greater climate change driver than man
'0.1 per cent of carbon dioxide due to human activity'
El Nino, La Nina caused by earthquake and volcanic activity

MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.

(He won the crossword, and beer drinking championship prize or was it the most time spent watching a rock prize:- no it was who can fit the most lies in an artical prize!)

Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer,


(Like to know under what basis he argues that, as humanity clearly affects its local and global areas; as they inhabit and change them- Easter island is a perfect example!)

Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.

(Professor of mining says it all I think!!!!)

“When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.

(Right so what he is saying here is that it's not until you can put clouds where you want them or cause earthquake to happen where you want them or give a drought to a country, actively make the weather do what you want- that WE, humanity! Can take any responibility for the earths climate, or even consider trying to solve global warming-

Reducing fish stocks to 10% of what they were 20 years ago or cutting down the majority of the rain forest- wipeing out thousands of different species in the process combined with massive polution from factories and power stations has'nt done anything:-  it's the sun, JUST BLAME THE SUN COZ THEN I CAN KEEP MY MINING JOB!!!!)

“I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”

(Who really is talking about changing the sun?- no-one! this is the earth not the solor processes! They solar processes certainly have an effect on the earth- but so do we! So what he is saying here is that we would have to change the sun to stop global warming- Rubbish!)

Speaking last night after presenting his theory for the first time, to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney,

(IT WENT: 'Its alright lads we can still dig!)

Prof Plimer said he had researched the history of the sun, solar and supernovae activity and had been able to correlate global climates with solar activity.

(And when exactly did our sun go supernova? ofcourse he is actually talking about other stars supernova blast radiation hitting us, which our suns solar wind prevents, but you cannot correlate or causalate this information because the solar wind influences the comic flux!)


“But correlations don't mean anything, you really need a causation,” Prof Plimer said.

(Right which he hasnt got either! thats a laught!)


So he then examined how cosmic radiation builds up clouds.

(yeah, it takes them down the gym! Clearly!

An increase in solar/cosmic radiation may increase evaporation and therefore make more or bigger clouds, but these clouds would then act to stop evaporation as they would reduce the sun light/radiation that would lead to evaporation. As the two scientist are currently trying, to increase the whiteness of clouds to reflect more sunlight! again your looking at ionization of the cloud cover but how this acutally affects the clouds and helps to cause global warming I'm still waiting to find out!)

A very active sun blows away the cosmic radiation, while a less active sun allows radiation to build up, he said.

(Sorry that makes no sense a very active sun would produce more, radiation than a less active one- the solar wind is relatively constant(800km/s) may have a slight increase in speed but not really! Again the cosmic radiation is also moving, but anyway just because there may be a relationship between cloud cover and tempreture, doesnt mean that that is the cause, It could be that it's actually the tempreture thats affecting the clouds- not the othre way around! could'nt it? This is all just speculation!)

“So you can very much tie in temperature, cloud formation, cosmic radiation and the sun,” he said.

(No, you cant as he himself said before “But correlations don't mean anything, you really need a causation,” Prof Plimer said.)

The next part of Prof Plimer's research was to examine the sources of carbon dioxide.

He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.


(Just wonder which lines he cut off here- Think someone should go through his resarch to double check it- I think he's hidden human effects away- in a box marked misc and clearly natural!)

Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases.

Nor does the melting of polar ice have anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide, he said.


(Here to a degree I do actually agree with him, but man made carbon does'nt actually help so again he's wrong! Sounds like he really wants the sun, or cosmic radiation to be responisble- maybe he feels guilty!)

“Great icebergs come off, not due to temperature change but due to the physics of ice and the flow of ice,” Prof Plimer said.

(Right so- It's got nothing to do with it being hotter- Icebergs are just designed to fall apart!)

“There's a lag, so that if temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises 800 years later.

(I understood it was 400 but if he want to double it thats fine!)

“If ice falls into the ocean in icebergs that's due to processes thousands of years ago.”

On the same basis, changes to sea level and temperature are also unrelated to anything happening today, he said.


(WHATEVER! NO COMMENT ON THAT ONE!)

“It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that human-induced carbon dioxide has any effect at all,” he said.

(Apart from the fact it's not just CO2 its also carbon monoxide, methane, CFCs etc!)

Prof Plimer added that as the planet was already at the maximum absorbance of energy of carbon dioxide, any more would have no greater effect.

(surely you can't actually know that till it happens!)

There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.

(Has'nt he just contradicted himself?)

The professor, a member of the Australian Skeptics, an organisation devoted to debunking pseudo-scientific claims, denied his was a minority view.

(An organization devoted proliferating pseudo-science and letting people carry on destroying the planet in my opinion!)

“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.

(If there are any reading this that do please stand up!)

He said bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened.

(clearly we all want the world to die- its a nicer way to live- walking about, thinking tomorrow this could all be gone!)

But Prof Plimer conceded the politics of greenhouse gas emissions meant that attention was being given to energy efficiency, which he supported.

(well thats something, not that politicians are really doing anywhere near enought- but he supports them- in not really doing enought!)

The professor, who is writing a book on the subject, said he only used validated scientific data, published in reputable peer-reviewed refereed journals, as the basis of his theories.

(The beano, and X-men! got it covered! oh an issue two of superman probably! He may make these claims but someone should actually check it over! Preferably not an Ecconomist!!!!)



Why geologist is putting his hat in the ring of psyics and climitology- You know blaming the sun!
He's a rock watcher! The guy watches rocks! and then drill holes throught them... I dont think he's is qualified to comment.... But then I dont think any of you are...lol

Besides he's a prof of mining! So he's not a geologist, he's a miner!

Besides Cosmic radiation is a constent, so really he is saying that as our sun spot activity changes this radiation is having a greater effect on the earth! and therefore it's the sun!

I totally dis-agree with this idea! We would have more examples and really our sun is hotting up and therefore producing an even stronger solar wind, and should really therefore prevent what he is saying!
I do agree that the sun spots are having an effect on the earth but, not because of cosmic rays!


Hows that stg Minor?

 
« Last Edit: 13/05/2007 20:31:37 by jolly »
 

jolly

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #3 on: 07/05/2007 22:06:57 »
So come paul hit me with it!
 

Offline Seany

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4209
  • Live your life to the full!
    • View Profile
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #4 on: 07/05/2007 22:23:45 »
Wow.. You're just a piece of meat in a lion's cage.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #5 on: 07/05/2007 22:59:17 »
g'day all,
fantastic site ;)...i'm learning lots but i was confused by this article, written by a geologist :o...
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21543358-5001024,00.html

is this as much true as it is put to confound people? I am led to think that man (or woman) is contributing much to climate change, can anyone help point out possible oversights in the article..if they exist?

cheers
anthony ;D

From what I read in the article, it is a theory which is suddenly becoming very fashionable.  To my mind, it is far more plausible than the greenhouse gas theory, but it is still too early to be certain of anything.

One point the article does raise is that the concern about greenhouse gases is causing an improvement in energy efficiency.  While, this of itself may be true, there is the very serious risk  that after the enormous political investment the science community has put in the greenhouse gas theory, if it is now shown to be wrong, or at least insignificant in its impact, it will seriously undermine the credibility of the scientific community as a whole.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #6 on: 07/05/2007 23:51:36 »
Sgt.

I doubt that one small lonely voice will change the overwhelmingly majority opinion of scientists and, as a geologist myself, I can see a few flaws in the logic. However, they are not as major as the  problem of his general starting premise, that the sun is the source of all the problems we now experience. He is not as qualified to speak about sun cycles as are the planetary astronomers and physicists. The consensus among these people is that there is no direct link between sun cycles and climate.

It is this flaw where the logic falls apart.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #7 on: 08/05/2007 00:29:45 »
Sgt.

I doubt that one small lonely voice will change the overwhelmingly majority opinion of scientists and, as a geologist myself, I can see a few flaws in the logic. However, they are not as major as the  problem of his general starting premise, that the sun is the source of all the problems we now experience. He is not as qualified to speak about sun cycles as are the planetary astronomers and physicists. The consensus among these people is that there is no direct link between sun cycles and climate.

It is this flaw where the logic falls apart.


Firstly, the greenhouse theory itself was once merely one small lonely voice.

Secondly, it is about the third time I have heard this theory repeated over the last few months.  Clearly, the amount of research behind it is limited, but it does seem clear that the voice is not quite lonely.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2007 00:31:58 by another_someone »
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #8 on: 08/05/2007 02:49:58 »
This has been cussed and discussed over and over again. I will not propagate the confusion. Yes it is a theory, but I do believe that the earth was once considered the God Given Center of the Universe until Galileo came along. The main point of my prior post was that the whole "... problem of his general starting premise, .." If the foundation is faulty, then the house will fall.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #9 on: 08/05/2007 20:43:28 »
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Quote
Cosmic Rays and Climate

By: Nir J. Shaviv

Article originally appeared in PhysicaPlus.

Sir William Herschel was the first to seriously consider the sun as a source of climate variations, already two centuries ago. He noted a correlation between the price of wheat, which he presumed to be a climate proxy, and the sunspot activity:
Quote
“The result of this review of the foregoing five periods is, that, from the price of wheat, it seems probable that some temporary scarcity or defect of vegetation has generally taken place, when the sun has been without those appearances which we surmise to be symptoms of a copious emission of light and heat.”
Sir William Herschel, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 91, 265 (1801)
Herschel presumed that this link arises from variation in the luminosity of the sun. Today, various solar activity and climate variations are indeed known to have a notable correlation on various time scales. The best example is perhaps the one depicted in fig. 1, on a centennial to millennial time scale between solar activity and the tropical climate of the Indian ocean (Neff et al. 2001). Another example of a beautiful correlation exists on a somewhat longer time scale, between solar activity and the northern atlantic climate (Bond et al. 2001). Nevertheless, the relatively small luminosity variations of the sun are most likely insufficient to explain this or other links. Thus, an amplifier of solar activity is probably required to explain these observed correlations.


 
Figure 1: The correlation between solar activity—as mirrored in the 14C flux, and a climate sensitivity variable, the 18O/16O isotope ratio from stalagmites in a cave in Oman, on a centennial to millennial time scale. The 14C is reconstructed from tree rings. It is a proxy of solar activity since a more active sun has a stronger solar wind which reduces the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth from outside the solar system. A reduced cosmic ray flux, will in turn reduce the spallation of nitrogen and oxygen and with it the formation of 14C. On the other hand, 18O/16O reflects the temperature of the Indian ocean—the source of the water that formed the stalagmites. (Graph from Neff et al., 2001, Copywrite by Nature, used with permission)


Several amplifiers were suggested. For example, UV radiation is all absorbed in the stratosphere, such that notable stratospheric changes arise with changes to the non-thermal radiation emitted by the sun. In fact, Joanna Heigh of Imperial College in London, suggested that through dynamic coupling with the troposphere, via the Hadley circulation (in which moist air ascends in the tropic and descends as dry air at a latitude of about 30°) the solar signal at the surface can be amplified. Here we are interested in what appears to be a much more indirect link between solar activity and climate.

In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization—Clouds.


 
Figure 2: The cosmic ray link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate. The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic ray reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system (cosmic rays with energies below the "knee" at 1015eV, are most likely accelerated by supernova remnants). Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically (as shown below), also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their "whiteness" is more important than their "blanket" effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. Intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations will have a similar effect, one however, which is unrelated to solar activity variations.


Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980's. By the mid 1990's, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.


 
Figure 3: The correlation between cosmic ray flux (orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and the low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003.


The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.

To begin with, climate variations appear to arise also from intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations, namely, from variations that have nothing to do with solar activity modulations. This removes any doubt that the observed solar activity cloud cover correlations are coincidental or without an actual causal connection. That is to say, it removes the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently the climate, such that we think that the cosmic rays and climate are related, where in fact they are not. Specifically, cosmic ray flux variations also arise from the varying environment around the solar system, as it journeys around the Milky Way. These variations appear to have left a paleoclimatic imprint in the geological records.

Cosmic Rays, at least at energies lower than 1015eV, are accelerated by supernova remnants. In our galaxy, most supernovae are the result of the death of massive stars. In spiral galaxies like our own, most of the star formation takes place in the spiral arms. These are waves which revolve around the galaxy at a speed different than the stars. Each time the wave passes (or is passed through), interstellar gas is shocked and forms new stars. Massive stars that end their lives with a supernova explosion, live a relatively short life of at most 30 million years, thus, they die not far form the spiral arms where they were born. As a consequence, most cosmic rays are accelerated in the vicinity of spiral arms. The solar system, however, has a much longer life span such that it periodically crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Each time it does so, it should witness an elevated level of cosmic rays. In fact, the cosmic ray flux variations arising from our galactic journey are ten times larger than the cosmic ray flux variations due to solar activity modulations, at the energies responsible for the tropospheric ionization (of order 10 GeV). If the latter is responsible for a 1°K effect, spiral arm passages should be responsible for a 10°K effect—more than enough to change the state of earth from a hothouse, with temperate climates extending to the polar regions, to an icehouse, with ice-caps on its poles, as Earth is today. In fact, it is expected to be the most dominant climate driver on the 108 to 109 yr time scale.

It was shown by the author (Shaviv 2002, 2003), that these intrinsic variation in the cosmic ray flux are clearly evident in the geological paleoclimate data. To within the determinations of the period and phase of the spiral-arm climate connection, the astronomical determinations of the relative velocity agree with the geological sedimentation record for when Earth was in a hothouse or icehouse conditions. Moreover, it was found that the cosmic ray flux can be independently reconstructed using the so called "exposure ages" of Iron meteorites. The signal, was found to agree with the astronomical predictions on one hand, and correlate well with the sedimentation record, all having a ~145 Myr period.


 
Figure 4: An Iron meteorite. A large sample of these meteorites can be used to reconstruct the past cosmic ray flux variations. The reconstructed signal reveals a 145 Myr periodicity. The one in the picture is part of the Sikhote Alin meteorite that fell over Siberia in the middle of the 20th century. The cosmic-ray exposure age of the meteorite implies that it broke off its parent body about 300 Million years ago.


In a later analysis, with Ján Veizer of the University of Ottawa and the Ruhr University of Bochum, it was found that the cosmic ray flux reconstruction agrees with a quantitative reconstruction of the tropical temperature (Shaviv & Veizer, 2003). In fact, the correlation is so well, it was shown that cosmic ray flux variations explain about two thirds of the variance in the reconstructed temperature signal. Thus, cosmic rays undoubtedly affect climate, and on geological time scales are the most dominant climate driver.


 
Figure 5: Correlation between the cosmic ray flux reconstruction (based on the exposure ages of Iron meteorites) and the geochemically reconstructed tropical temperature. The comparison between the two reconstructions reveals the dominant role of cosmic rays and the galactic "geography" as a climate driver over geological time scales. (Shaviv & Vezier 2003)


 
Figure 6: A summary of the 4 different signals revealing the cosmic ray flux climate link over geological time scales. Plotted are the period and phase (of expected peak coldness) of two extraterrestrial signals (astronomical determinations of the spiral arm pattern speed and cosmic ray flux reconstruction using Iron meteorites) and two paleoclimate reconstruction (based on sedimentation and geochemical records). All four signals are consistent with each other, demonstrating the robustness of the link. If any data set is excluded, a link should still exist.


Recently, it was also shown by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Nigel Marsh of the Danish Space Research Center and their colleagues, that the variations in the amount of low altitude cloud cover follow the expectations from a cosmic-ray/cloud cover link (Usoskin et al., 2004). Specifically, it was found that the relative change in the low altitude cloud cover is proportional to the relative change in the solar-cycle induced atmospheric ionization at the given geomagnetic latitudes and at the altitude of low clouds (up to about 3 kms). Namely, at higher latitudes were the the ionization variations are about twice as large as those of low latitudes, the low altitude cloud variations are roughly twice as large as well.

Thus, it now appears that empirical evidence for a cosmic-ray/cloud-cover link is abundant. However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? The answer is that although there are indications for how the link may arise, no firm scenario, at least one which is based on solid experimental results, is yet present.

Although above 100% saturation, the preferred phase of water is liquid, it will not be able to condense unless it has a surface to do so on. Thus, to form cloud droplets the air must have cloud condensation nuclei—small dust particles or aerosols upon which the water can condense.  By changing the number density of these particles, the properties of the clouds can be varied, with more cloud condensation nuclei, the cloud droplets are more numerous but smaller, this tends to make whiter and longer living clouds. This effect was seen down stream of smoke stacks, down stream of cities, and in the oceans in the form of ship tracks in the marine cloud layer.

The suggested hypothesis, is that in regions devoid of dust (e.g., over the large ocean basins), the formation of cloud condensation nuclei takes place from the growth of small aerosol clusters, and that the formation of the latter is governed by the availability of charge, such that charged aerosol clusters are more stable and can grow while neutral clusters can more easily break apart. Several experimental results tend to support this hypothesis, but not yet prove it. For example, the group of Frank Arnold at the university of Heidelberg collected air in airborne missions and found that, as expected, charge clusters play an important role in the formation of small condensation nuclei. It is yet to be seen that the small condensation nuclei grow through accretion and not through scavenging by larger objects. If the former process is dominant, charge and therefore cosmic ray ionization would play an important role in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei.

One of the promising prospects for proving the "missing link", is the SKY experiment being conducted in the Danish National Space Center, where a real "cloud chamber" mimics the conditions in the atmosphere. This includes, for example, varying levels of background ionization and aerosols levels (sulpheric acid in particular). Within a few months, the experiment will hopefully shed light on the physical mechanics responsible for the apparent link between cloud cover and therefore climate in general, to cosmic rays, and through the solar wind, also to solar activity. [Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): The experimental results indeed confirm a link]


 
Figure 7: The Danish National Space Center SKY reaction chamber experiment. The experiment was built with the goal of pinning down the microphysics behind the cosmic ray/cloud cover link found through various empirical correlations. From left to right: Nigel Marsh, Jan Veizer, Henrik Svensmark. Behind the camera: the author.

The implications of this link are far reaching. Not only does it imply that on various time scales were solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent, if not the dominent climate drivers, it offers an explanation to at least some of the climate variability witnessed over the past century and millennium. In particular, not all of the 20th century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming.

More information can be found at:
    1.A general article on the cosmic ray climate link over geological time scales.
    2.Henrik Svensmark's web site, including various publications on the cosmic-ray/cloud link.
    3.The awaited results of the Danish SKY cloud experiment will be reported on their website within several months.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2007 20:48:42 by another_someone »
 

jolly

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #10 on: 12/05/2007 04:24:09 »

However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? The answer is that although there are indications for how the link may arise, no firm scenario, at least one which is based on solid experimental results, is yet present.

Ergo will still have no experiment to really prove any of this it is therefore mainly speculation- correct?


Although above 100% saturation, the preferred phase of water is liquid, it will not be able to condense unless it has a surface to do so on. Thus, to form cloud droplets the air must have cloud condensation nuclei—small dust particles or aerosols upon which the water can condense.  By changing the number density of these particles, the properties of the clouds can be varied, with more cloud condensation nuclei, the cloud droplets are more numerous but smaller, this tends to make whiter and longer living clouds. This effect was seen down stream of smoke stacks, down stream of cities, and in the oceans in the form of ship tracks in the marine cloud layer.

The suggested hypothesis, is that in regions devoid of dust (e.g., over the large ocean basins), the formation of cloud condensation nuclei takes place from the growth of small aerosol clusters, and that the formation of the latter is governed by the availability of charge, such that charged aerosol clusters are more stable and can grow while neutral clusters can more easily break apart. Several experimental results tend to support this hypothesis, but not yet prove it. For example, the group of Frank Arnold at the university of Heidelberg collected air in airborne missions and found that, as expected, charge clusters play an important role in the formation of small condensation nuclei. It is yet to be seen that the small condensation nuclei grow through accretion and not through scavenging by larger objects. If the former process is dominant, charge and therefore cosmic ray ionization would play an important role in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei.

IF!


One of the promising prospects for proving the "missing link", is the SKY experiment being conducted in the Danish National Space Center, where a real "cloud chamber" mimics the conditions in the atmosphere. This includes, for example, varying levels of background ionization and aerosols levels (sulpheric acid in particular). Within a few months, the experiment will hopefully shed light on the physical mechanics responsible for the apparent link between cloud cover and therefore climate in general, to cosmic rays, and through the solar wind, also to solar activity. [Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): The experimental results indeed confirm a link]



To what extent to you consider the ozone layer to have an impact on the cosmic rays- impact on clouds?

 
Figure 7: The Danish National Space Center SKY reaction chamber experiment. The experiment was built with the goal of pinning down the microphysics behind the cosmic ray/cloud cover link found through various empirical correlations.

Which include?


From left to right: Nigel Marsh, Jan Veizer, Henrik Svensmark. Behind the camera: the author.

The implications of this link are far reaching. Not only does it imply that on various time scales were solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent, if not the dominent climate drivers, it offers an explanation to at least some of the climate variability witnessed over the past century and millennium. In particular, not all of the 20th century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming.

What are these antropogenic sourses? Solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent- well which is it?

Sorry but your post hasnt really helped me see or believe that the solar wind or cosmic rays are at all related to global warming! There may be a relationship, but we still cannot seperate the two properly!

I feel it has more to do with magnetics!
Cloude cover I dont think really has as much of an impact on climate as you claim here!
« Last Edit: 12/05/2007 04:35:18 by jolly »
 

jolly

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #11 on: 12/05/2007 04:30:47 »

Figure 5: Correlation between the cosmic ray flux reconstruction (based on the exposure ages of Iron meteorites) and the geochemically reconstructed tropical temperature. The comparison between the two reconstructions reveals the dominant role of cosmic rays and the galactic "geography" as a climate driver over geological time scales.


Figure 6: A summary of the 4 different signals revealing the cosmic ray flux climate link over geological time scales. Plotted are the period and phase (of expected peak coldness) of two extraterrestrial signals (astronomical determinations of the spiral arm pattern speed and cosmic ray flux reconstruction using Iron meteorites) and two paleoclimate reconstruction (based on sedimentation and geochemical records). All four signals are consistent with each other, demonstrating the robustness of the link. If any data set is excluded, a link should still exist.

Wait a minute surely that is incorrect as you stated before


"However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two".

and that should also apply to geological data too- surely!

Sorry went through the whole thing and my post was over 20,000 chacters and it wouldnt let me post it and so I lost half of it!
« Last Edit: 12/05/2007 04:36:56 by jolly »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #12 on: 12/05/2007 04:50:19 »
Ergo will still have no experiment to really prove any of this it is therefore mainly speculation- correct?

Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to prove anything concerning long term climate change.  How do you experiment with the climate?  This is true no matter what theory one chooses to believe in.

To what extent to you consider the ozone layer to have an impact on the cosmic rays- impact on clouds?

I would doubt that the ozone layer has any more effect on cosmic radiation than the rest of the atmosphere.

The entire atmosphere actually does quite a bit to reduce cosmic radiation from reaching the ground, but the ozone layer is particularly good at removing UV radiation, but has no special properties that I am aware of regarding cosmic radiation.

 
Figure 7: The Danish National Space Center SKY reaction chamber experiment. The experiment was built with the goal of pinning down the microphysics behind the cosmic ray/cloud cover link found through various empirical correlations.

Which include?

I would guess they were trying to see how much the kind of radiation that we get in cosmic radiation can seed clouds, and whether the kind of clouds they seed are the type we see in nature.

What are these antropogenic sourses? Solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent- well which is it?

Anthropogenic sources refers to human related sources, primarily the theory that human created CO2 is a major factor in climate change.  The argument they are putting forward is that human related sources (such as human generated CO2[/sub}) cannot be a dominant factor in climate change.

Sorry but your post hasnt really helped me see or believe that the solar wind or cosmic rays are at all related to global warming! There may be a relationship, but we still cannot seperate the two properly!

I feel it has more to do with magnetics!
Cloude cover I dont think really has as much of an impact on climate as you claim here!

That cloud cover is an important part of the climate I would say is self evident - a cloudy day in summer is likely to be colder than a day without clouds (the argument is not so clear cut when one also looks at clouds in winter, at least in higher latitudes, although near the equator clouds will always be associated with colder days).

Yes, magnetics are part if the issue - since solar activity is strongly linked to the magnetic flux of the Sun, and cosmic radiation reaching the Earth is also influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. 
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #13 on: 12/05/2007 04:58:37 »

Figure 5: Correlation between the cosmic ray flux reconstruction (based on the exposure ages of Iron meteorites) and the geochemically reconstructed tropical temperature. The comparison between the two reconstructions reveals the dominant role of cosmic rays and the galactic "geography" as a climate driver over geological time scales.


Figure 6: A summary of the 4 different signals revealing the cosmic ray flux climate link over geological time scales. Plotted are the period and phase (of expected peak coldness) of two extraterrestrial signals (astronomical determinations of the spiral arm pattern speed and cosmic ray flux reconstruction using Iron meteorites) and two paleoclimate reconstruction (based on sedimentation and geochemical records). All four signals are consistent with each other, demonstrating the robustness of the link. If any data set is excluded, a link should still exist.

Wait a minute surely that is incorrect as you stated before

As I stated before?

I didn't think I made any comment indicating whether it was correct or not  ???

If you are saying the report that I quoted from, then that is another matter, but I was quoting from someone else's study, I was not making statements on my own account.


"However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two".

and that should also apply to geological data too- surely!


Sorry, what should apply to the geological data?
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #14 on: 12/05/2007 22:14:41 »
Quote
That cloud cover is an important part of the climate I would say is self evident - a cloudy day in summer is likely to be colder than a day without clouds (the argument is not so clear cut when one also looks at clouds in winter, at least in higher latitudes, although near the equator clouds will always be associated with colder days).

Yes, magnetics are part if the issue - since solar activity is strongly linked to the magnetic flux of the Sun, and cosmic radiation reaching the Earth is also influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. 

I wonder exactly how much influence clouds actually have, they are not opaque to the entire spectrum of radiation, and at night they work in reverse, they block outward infrared.

Think our magnetosphere plays a pretty large part in blocking cosmic radiation. (Always wondered how much that would deteriorate during a pole-reversal,but probably don't really want to know, at least not find out the hard way.)

 

jolly

  • Guest
Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #15 on: 12/05/2007 23:31:39 »

"However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two".

and that should also apply to geological data too- surely!


Sorry, what should apply to the geological data?

Well as stated above you cannot corralate the cosmic rays influence on clouds- because the solar wind works to remove it- so the flux in cosmic rays could really be just a flux in the solar wind radiation- but surely using geological information could or would express the same thing.
How can you use rock or meteorite information as evidence for cosmic ray flux- when again the solar wind would affect that flux and therefore make it an inacturate model! 

Also our sun is heating up and therefore surely producing an ever increasing wind strength- compared to what it was... So really todays solar wind in normal form should be stronger than it has been, and therefore keep even more cosmic radiation away, except when the sun spots reduce the solar wind strength- If sun spots increase the solar wind then it would remove even more cosmic radiation! 
with regards to the past surely cosmic radiation should have impacted on the earth far more than it is today as our sun was cooler!
I do how ever think there may be a link with sun spots- but because of magnetics, As I said before I believe that the north and south poles magnetic field works to remove heat, or rather worked to remove heat, as the core cools, the magnetics of the earth has changed and the core can no longer produce the magnetics nessacery to remove heat from the north and south pole as it did! sun spots are magnetically created! and really it is an inter play between these magnetic forces that is causing the poles to melt!


Yes, magnetics are part if the issue - since solar activity is strongly linked to the magnetic flux of the Sun, and cosmic radiation reaching the Earth is also influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. 

I believe that the core cooling is our responibility! We have affected the cores temperture. If the core was working as it did we would be protected from any tempreture rise as the earths magnetic field would maintain the tempreture at the north and south poles, and that would have a knock on effect- and cool the rest of the planet!
   
« Last Edit: 13/05/2007 00:54:30 by jolly »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Mankind 'can't influence' climate
« Reply #15 on: 12/05/2007 23:31:39 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums