BethesdaWX Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 http://www.atmos-che...-10941-2010.pdf Fantastic read. Definitely took some time, but worth it nonetheless. As noted , a 2% change in GCL is enough to qualify the "warming signal" we've seen over the past 150yrs. Perfect timing with the end of the Dalton Minimum has the temperature responded. Strong Solar Magnetic Field & its impact on cosmic rays is now established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted November 26, 2010 Share Posted November 26, 2010 http://www.atmos-che...-10941-2010.pdf Fantastic read. Definitely took some time, but worth it nonetheless. As noted , a 2% change in GCL is enough to qualify the "warming signal" we've seen over the past 150yrs. Perfect timing with the end of the Dalton Minimum has the temperature responded. Strong Solar Magnetic Field & its impact on cosmic rays is now established. The effects of the Solar Magnetic Field (or Interplanetary Field as we also call it) on Galactic Cosmic Rays has been known for quite some so that's nothing new. As far as the possibility of the impact upon Global weather and climate that too has been in discussion for quite some time-well before you made your appearance. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 26, 2010 Author Share Posted November 26, 2010 The effects of the Solar Magnetic Field (or Interplanetary Field as we also call it) on Galactic Cosmic Rays has been known for quite some so that's nothing new. As far as the possibility of the impact upon Global weather and climate that too has been in discussion for quite some time-well before you made your appearance. Steve Its not that it wasn't in discussion, but it has just recently been taken into higher account for what we're seeing. Aside from the effect solar radiation has on the planet, the GCC - Cosmic Ray relationship may very well account for the warming signal we've been seeing since the Little Ice Age. Only 2-3% decrease in GCC could explain our recent warming of 0.7C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Possibly, but I remember discussions of this same subject in the old TWCForum on Compuserve back 15 years ago. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted November 28, 2010 Author Share Posted November 28, 2010 Possibly, but I remember discussions of this same subject in the old TWCForum on Compuserve back 15 years ago. Steve Oh yes, the science has been around for some time, but it has been neglected, and shoved aside when all this nonsense began. Now, the public is changing sides, as are many scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 Possibly, but I remember discussions of this same subject in the old TWCForum on Compuserve back 15 years ago. Steve Amzing how far we haven't come on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 Oh yes, the science has been around for some time, but it has been neglected, and shoved aside when all this nonsense began. Now, the public is changing sides, as are many scientists. No. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 No. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm Numerous studies have also investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation (the third step). Kazil et al. (2006) found: "the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover." Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found: "we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays." Kristjansson et al. (2008) found: "no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR" Calogovic et al. (2010) found: "no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude." Kulmala et al. (2010) also found "galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well." Although there was a correlation between GCRs and low-level cloud cover until about 1991, after that point the correlation broke down (Laut 2003) and cloud cover began to lag GCR trends by over 6 months, while cloud formation should occur within several days (Yu 2000). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm Numerous studies have also investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation (the third step). Kazil et al. (2006) found: "the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover." Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found: "we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays." Kristjansson et al. (2008) found: "no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR" Calogovic et al. (2010) found: "no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude." Kulmala et al. (2010) also found "galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well." Although there was a correlation between GCRs and low-level cloud cover until about 1991, after that point the correlation broke down (Laut 2003) and cloud cover began to lag GCR trends by over 6 months, while cloud formation should occur within several days (Yu 2000). Yes... the correlation is very small... but it only takes 2% decrease evg over 150yrs to create our warming of 0.7C since 1850.... the end of the Maunder. PLase read the article before you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Yes... the correlation is very small... but it only takes 2% decrease evg over 150yrs to create our warming of 0.7C since 1850.... the end of the Maunder. PLase read the article before you post. Except GCR has no observed effect on cloud cover according to the published peer reviewed articles I posted. Not even close to producing a 2% drop. Large numbers of peer -reviewed scientific studies say GCRs are not having much effect on climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 Except GCR has no observed effect on cloud cover according to the published peer reviewed articles I posted. Not even close to producing a 2% drop. And, according to the newest study, it does. http://www.atmos-che...-10941-2010.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 And, according to the newest study, it does. http://www.atmos-che...-10941-2010.pdf That study specifically concerns sharp very short term changes in GCR (day to day). It does not even speculate on any long term effect. In fact it assumes "no linear change in short term GCR fluctuations." It mentions and implicitly assumes the validity of AGW several times in the paper. On longer timescales there is no detectable effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 That study specifically concerns sharp very short term changes in GCR (day to day). It does not even speculate on any long term effect. In fact it assumes "no linear change in short term GCR fluctuations." It mentions and implicitly assumes the validity of AGW several times in the paper. On longer timescales there is no detectable effect. We don't have much to go for in longer timescale anyway. In recent decades, the effect has been there. Our current ideas indeed show little to no effect in the LR, but our best data came into play. Global cloud cover has been decreasing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.