Global Warming Predictions-German2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A View of Earth from Saturn (Photo credit: alpoma)
NASA (Photo credit: Luke Bryant)
Climate_Change_Attribution_fr (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Reduction of flood and associated extreme weather costs is the primary benefit of climate change mitigation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
GLOBAL WARMING (Photo credit: dyekoy)
Global Warming (Photo credit: mirjoran)3:06 am
Total Pageviews
It was 3 years ago on Dec 1 that it finally percolated through my brain that soothsayers were succeeding in stampeding the population into believing they were going to fry in Hell....and I found the AGW Hoax file.
Extreme Weather Report
Environment
John
- 6 hours
ago
- cfact.org
PDF
125 International Scientists Rebuke UN
for Climate Claims in Open Letter: 'Global warming that has not occurred
cannot have caused extreme weather of past few years.
........(45) Tuesday December 11, 2012, 7:26 pm
Good posting, thanks
John Farnham (51) Wednesday December 12, 2012, 1:44 am
:) TY Many buy into the Poisoning the Well Argumentation that extraction industries are able to fund convincing rebuttals to Anthropogenic Global Warming through organizations like CFACT without similarly questioning motives of the proponents - which makes it a battle of politics rather than one of science. I should be notorious around here now for questioning the authority of the Club of Rome as disbursed through the UN department the IPCC as it pushes global energy tax payable to itself. Not that most have ever realized such is going on - including myself until I picked up on the perversion of the BBCs reporting 6 years ago http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/28-gate-bbc-crisis-deepens-in-exposure-of-rigged-and-unlawful-climate-policy/ Actually I had reports from Biased BBC that coverage was fubar for 3 decades ! Here's a fun factoid http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/08/19/the-pariah-u-n-requests-criminal-prosecution-immunity-for-climate-scientists-engaged-in-constructive-fraud/ More at my http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.ca/
Science & Climate – FM articles
Fran Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario) permalink
7 June 2009 1:51 am
…the rest of the story. Climate is changing and always
will. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the
economy. Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate
is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system.
The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious
‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to
all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our
economy. That issue makes the science relevant.Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun allows the geomagnetic shield to drop. Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates more low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected resulting in a colder climate.
Active sun has an enhanced magnetic field which induces Earth’s geomagnetic shield response. Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.
That is how the bulk of climate change works, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The change on cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center. NASA has ignored all work outside the biased US establishment.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: The relationship of solar activity to cosmic rays to Earth’s clould cover is a theory, nothing more. And controversial. To see a few studies about this go to secion V of the FM reference page Science & nature – studies & reports.
Digging up the dirt on Singer
Dr. Francis T. Manns
2007/06/08
Models are GIGO. For instance, sequester enough CO2 and you starve
plant life, cut down on oxygen and CO2, and freeze the planet. We will
then need to burn the furniture to keep warm which could tip over into
burning the remaining oxygen while we all choke in the cold. Sound
incredible? It is.
The planet has evolved mechanisms over geological time (4.5 billion years of trial and error) to protect itself. Earth’s climate varies for a lot of extraterrestrial reasons. The shortest period has to do with the interplay of solar activity and cosmic radiation from the Milky Way. During quiet periods of solar activity, like now, cosmic radiation penetrates the atmosphere and creates clouds where conditions permit. Over long periods this cools the earth. Most of the time however, sun’s magnetic activity induces earth’s geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic shields are up during most of the 11 year sun spot cycle. Earth’s cooling (1940-1965) and earth’s heating (balance of the 20th century) is 95% correlated to sunspot peak frequency. Short cycles induce cooling and long cycles induce warming. This is a magnificently balanced system because the total solar irradiance varies very little. The subtlety is the correlation with sunspot peak frequency. During the Maunder Minimum there were no sunspots and the world suffered through the Little Ice Age.
CO2 has come out of the planet during 4.5 billion years of volcanic activity. Plants use CO2 to produce carbohydrates, oxygen and water vapour. Free oxygen is not produced by volcanoes. CO2 has the property of inverse solubility. Global warming from the sun forces CO2 out of the ocean in increasing quantities like warming beer. CO2 is the effect, not the cause of the warming. Moreover, the absorption wavelength for CO2 in the spectrum is filled. CO2 will not contribute any more heating. The analogy is adding a second Venetian blind to your window may not make the room any darker.
Sea level is said to be rising (ICPP) at 2 – 3 mm a year. Since the Pleistocene it has risen 125 metres (6 mm a year) and most of the coastal tribes of the earth have a Noah. The coral reefs of the oceans have kept pace because of a symbiotic relationship with algae that keep them thriving in the sunlit surface of the sea no matter how fast sea level rises. Barrier bars like the Atlantic longshore bar are dynamic features that are fed sand by Piedmont rivers and maintain themselves in the surf zone. A summer beach is wide and fine and a winter beach is coarse and steep. Common sense needs to be applied.
By the way modern coal-fired power plants produce electricity, water vapour and CO2; plant food not pollution. The US has enough coal and oil shale to support itself for 1,000 years. This AGW piece is political, not scientific, and is coming out on party lines.
The planet has evolved mechanisms over geological time (4.5 billion years of trial and error) to protect itself. Earth’s climate varies for a lot of extraterrestrial reasons. The shortest period has to do with the interplay of solar activity and cosmic radiation from the Milky Way. During quiet periods of solar activity, like now, cosmic radiation penetrates the atmosphere and creates clouds where conditions permit. Over long periods this cools the earth. Most of the time however, sun’s magnetic activity induces earth’s geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic shields are up during most of the 11 year sun spot cycle. Earth’s cooling (1940-1965) and earth’s heating (balance of the 20th century) is 95% correlated to sunspot peak frequency. Short cycles induce cooling and long cycles induce warming. This is a magnificently balanced system because the total solar irradiance varies very little. The subtlety is the correlation with sunspot peak frequency. During the Maunder Minimum there were no sunspots and the world suffered through the Little Ice Age.
CO2 has come out of the planet during 4.5 billion years of volcanic activity. Plants use CO2 to produce carbohydrates, oxygen and water vapour. Free oxygen is not produced by volcanoes. CO2 has the property of inverse solubility. Global warming from the sun forces CO2 out of the ocean in increasing quantities like warming beer. CO2 is the effect, not the cause of the warming. Moreover, the absorption wavelength for CO2 in the spectrum is filled. CO2 will not contribute any more heating. The analogy is adding a second Venetian blind to your window may not make the room any darker.
Sea level is said to be rising (ICPP) at 2 – 3 mm a year. Since the Pleistocene it has risen 125 metres (6 mm a year) and most of the coastal tribes of the earth have a Noah. The coral reefs of the oceans have kept pace because of a symbiotic relationship with algae that keep them thriving in the sunlit surface of the sea no matter how fast sea level rises. Barrier bars like the Atlantic longshore bar are dynamic features that are fed sand by Piedmont rivers and maintain themselves in the surf zone. A summer beach is wide and fine and a winter beach is coarse and steep. Common sense needs to be applied.
By the way modern coal-fired power plants produce electricity, water vapour and CO2; plant food not pollution. The US has enough coal and oil shale to support itself for 1,000 years. This AGW piece is political, not scientific, and is coming out on party lines.
Smokey:-) I thank you Sir!
I have some expereince of how government establishments work as I used to be an employee ( I must confess I was underworked & overpaid back then, as were many others – but of course that is no criticism of current government employees!) I remember a supervisor of mine who was employed on a lower grade & hence salary because although competent he was a bit “too young” for the post that was advertised – why they employed him then I don’t know but that’s not the point, – a few years later he was told he could be promoted up without too much diffuclty but he needed to write a paper or two – particularly one that would endorse the current stance of the establishment at which he was employed, although of course written in an “impartial” way by a professional person! He got it!
I have some expereince of how government establishments work as I used to be an employee ( I must confess I was underworked & overpaid back then, as were many others – but of course that is no criticism of current government employees!) I remember a supervisor of mine who was employed on a lower grade & hence salary because although competent he was a bit “too young” for the post that was advertised – why they employed him then I don’t know but that’s not the point, – a few years later he was told he could be promoted up without too much diffuclty but he needed to write a paper or two – particularly one that would endorse the current stance of the establishment at which he was employed, although of course written in an “impartial” way by a professional person! He got it!
RW, please add a discussion of oceanic
oscillation affects. These can have a significant impact on weather
pattern variation over several decades. Certainly this has been the
case in the past. What part do you think they are playing now, since no
one has managed to turn them off yet to allow something else to affect
weather pattern variations. The oceans are not warmer, or for that
matter cooler, than would be expected for the various phases they are in
regarding their oscillations. So far, the ocean temperatures are not
being affected by CO2. They are behaving normally. And just so you
know where to look, spend some time at NOAA on SST and try to find an
ocean that is warm because of CO2, not because of its normal pattern of
oscillation. Finally, it is well understood by meteorologists and
climatologists that weather pattern variations are sourced by what ever
the oceans are doing.
I keep bumping into these ridiculous articles,
where Scientists give us some new information about the Climate but are
in denial about any possible effects it might have on their belief
system.
Some choice quotes:
In stark contrast to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic over the last 30 years, the frozen seas surrounding the South Pole have increased at the rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade over the last 40 years.
That’s interesting…..
Scientists believe the growth is down to stronger surface winds over Antarctica and more frequent storms in the Southern Ocean – both direct consequences of the ozone hole.
Is it? Cool.
But the team from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Nasa warned the ozone hole was only delaying the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate of the White Continent.
If ozone levels recover as expected over the next 100 years, thanks to the international ban on damaging CFCs, weather patterns will return to normal and Antarctic sea ice will shrink rapidly, they said.
Wait a minute….. has the hole in the Ozone layer grown larger or not?. If it isn’t shrinking, then what good did banning CFC’s do and what benefit 100 years into the future will that give to Antarctica?
I must admit to feeling a little confused.
The hypothesis about the initiation of ice ages is simply that warming causes humidity which results in precipitation in the form of ice and snow in high latitudes. There is experimental support from the Danish geophysicists in the cosmic ray experiment. A number of heavy duty labs wil continue the experimental work when the Hadron collider start up again in (July).
Incidently , the Danish experiment inn their basement cloud chamber published in Britain was not negated by an afterthought artical by George Monbiot in “The Guardian”. George Monbiot has misspoken the Danish research whether by mistake or design from the very start because it does not fit his model of single world government. There has never been any experinmental support for CO2 as a greenhouse gas.* If you caN FIND ANY, POST IT. To the contrary, co2 does not seem to matter at all EXCEPT TO POLITICIANS.
* Something I wondered at myself.
1. The earth is cooling. Click here.
2. The Sun causes climate change. Click here.
3. Al Gore was wrong about CO2. Click here.
4. Violent weather isn’t getting worse. Click here.
5. It’s been hotter. Click here.
6. Climate computer models are proven wrong. Click here.
Experiments conducted in the early 20th Century by scientists including R.W. Wood and Niels Bohr proved that “greenhouse” gases like CO2 cannot increase air temperature by “trapping” infrared radiation. The results of R.W. Wood’s research were published in Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320 - back when science relied on experiments, not computer models. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Empirical science proves that CO2 will not warm our atmosphere by trapping IR. The Earth will continue to warm and cool according to the natural cycles of the sun, the oceans, volcanism, orbital variations, and numerous other natural factors. The 0.038 percent concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a drop in the bucket and totally irrelevant and insignificant.
Some choice quotes:
In stark contrast to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic over the last 30 years, the frozen seas surrounding the South Pole have increased at the rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade over the last 40 years.
That’s interesting…..
Scientists believe the growth is down to stronger surface winds over Antarctica and more frequent storms in the Southern Ocean – both direct consequences of the ozone hole.
Is it? Cool.
But the team from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Nasa warned the ozone hole was only delaying the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate of the White Continent.
If ozone levels recover as expected over the next 100 years, thanks to the international ban on damaging CFCs, weather patterns will return to normal and Antarctic sea ice will shrink rapidly, they said.
Wait a minute….. has the hole in the Ozone layer grown larger or not?. If it isn’t shrinking, then what good did banning CFC’s do and what benefit 100 years into the future will that give to Antarctica?
I must admit to feeling a little confused.
eric:-)
A couple of points:- Firstly, you have got it a little bit the wrong way round, this blog does the leading, the rest of us do the cheering, clear? Good!
Secondly, yes the Sun does fluctuate & always has done & hopefully always will up to a point, I am pleased to here you know so, but we will see quite soon if this lack of Sunspots & low magnetic field, & generally quiet Sun has any significant effect, won’t we? It is also very dodgy ground to state things like “it is believed” without citing by whom & based upon what evidence, try something along the lines of “as I understand it….. or….it is understood that….” etc, that lends an air of authority rather than saying the former as you suggest it is a belief system not scientific fact. The IPCC has been shown to be wrong in many of its judgements many times over simply because it is activist lead, not scientist lead! What the IPCC has failed to do is a Risk Assessment on whether we are heading into a new Ice-Age or even a second Little-Ice-Age, instead of continual warming through to the next century, this also smacks of arrogance & ignorance with no interest in the science, just how the science can be manipulated for political ends!
AND finally, as a 51 year old engineer, as I frequently remind my 23 year old son, I may be getting old, but it doesn’t mean I am turning stupid with it! To equate age with the suggestion that one is finished, that attitude smacks of youthful arrogance, & not of a well thought through balanced argument! You have clearly taken a leaf out of that stupid old has been Albert Gore, & “shouldn’t listen to the old people!”.
A couple of points:- Firstly, you have got it a little bit the wrong way round, this blog does the leading, the rest of us do the cheering, clear? Good!
Secondly, yes the Sun does fluctuate & always has done & hopefully always will up to a point, I am pleased to here you know so, but we will see quite soon if this lack of Sunspots & low magnetic field, & generally quiet Sun has any significant effect, won’t we? It is also very dodgy ground to state things like “it is believed” without citing by whom & based upon what evidence, try something along the lines of “as I understand it….. or….it is understood that….” etc, that lends an air of authority rather than saying the former as you suggest it is a belief system not scientific fact. The IPCC has been shown to be wrong in many of its judgements many times over simply because it is activist lead, not scientist lead! What the IPCC has failed to do is a Risk Assessment on whether we are heading into a new Ice-Age or even a second Little-Ice-Age, instead of continual warming through to the next century, this also smacks of arrogance & ignorance with no interest in the science, just how the science can be manipulated for political ends!
AND finally, as a 51 year old engineer, as I frequently remind my 23 year old son, I may be getting old, but it doesn’t mean I am turning stupid with it! To equate age with the suggestion that one is finished, that attitude smacks of youthful arrogance, & not of a well thought through balanced argument! You have clearly taken a leaf out of that stupid old has been Albert Gore, & “shouldn’t listen to the old people!”.
Since I signed up at RePower America to
send my thoughts to the newspapers, I just got an email from them that
in part said this:
”
“Dear Mike,
In order to solve the climate crisis, we can’t just change light bulbs — we need to change laws.
We’re closer today than ever before. Right now, Congress is debating clean energy legislation that will jumpstart our economy and help solve the climate crisis.
On this Earth Day, can I depend on you to support this crucial legislation?
Yes. I’ll get 10 people to sign the petition in support of clean energy legislation within the next week.”
I decided to unsubscribe and told them why…
eric 10:30:24
Ah, hopeful words. Why is it that none, or almost none, of the climate models predict natural variability to overwhelm the effect of CO2 for ‘as much as a decade or more’? And please see lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings/ for disconfirmation, at the 95% confidence level, of the AR4 projection of 0.2C rise per decade, in eight short years.
The models are wrong; they’ve overestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. This is the simplest explanation for today’s dropping temperatures while CO2 continues to rise. You may hope that temperature starts to rise again, but the oceanic oscillations in their cooling phase and possibly the effect of the quiescent sun makes your hopes vain. We shouldn’t base expensive and dangerous policy on your vain hopes.
”
“Dear Mike,
In order to solve the climate crisis, we can’t just change light bulbs — we need to change laws.
We’re closer today than ever before. Right now, Congress is debating clean energy legislation that will jumpstart our economy and help solve the climate crisis.
On this Earth Day, can I depend on you to support this crucial legislation?
Yes. I’ll get 10 people to sign the petition in support of clean energy legislation within the next week.”
I decided to unsubscribe and told them why…
eric 10:30:24
Ah, hopeful words. Why is it that none, or almost none, of the climate models predict natural variability to overwhelm the effect of CO2 for ‘as much as a decade or more’? And please see lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings/ for disconfirmation, at the 95% confidence level, of the AR4 projection of 0.2C rise per decade, in eight short years.
The models are wrong; they’ve overestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. This is the simplest explanation for today’s dropping temperatures while CO2 continues to rise. You may hope that temperature starts to rise again, but the oceanic oscillations in their cooling phase and possibly the effect of the quiescent sun makes your hopes vain. We shouldn’t base expensive and dangerous policy on your vain hopes.
Yo, RW, I asked you to post the hand plotted chart you said you made. @06:52:38 you said:
“I got the data from publicly available sources, and plotted the graphs.”
It should only take a minute or two to post your hand made chart… unless you were, like, pretending. So let’s see it.
And about your claim that CO2 is making the planet hotter:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
click13
click14
click15
click16
click17
click18
click19
click20
So who are you gonna believe? Al Gore? Or your lyin’ eyes?
“I got the data from publicly available sources, and plotted the graphs.”
It should only take a minute or two to post your hand made chart… unless you were, like, pretending. So let’s see it.
And about your claim that CO2 is making the planet hotter:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
click13
click14
click15
click16
click17
click18
click19
click20
So who are you gonna believe? Al Gore? Or your lyin’ eyes?
Climate is changing and always will.
The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy.
Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate is a
multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The
facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious
‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to
all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our
economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
Francis Manns permalink
12 July 2009 10:53 pm
I ignore all your argumentum ad hominem. CO2 is de minimis
at ppm; read the UN IPCC reports. The water feedback is negative.
Warming a humid world causes clouds and precipitation – a negative
feedback to any CO2 induced warming. There are serious criticisms of
greenhouse gas theory: what sort of CO2 blanket allows heat to escape to
space on a clear night and traps heat on a cloudy night. The hypothesis about the initiation of ice ages is simply that warming causes humidity which results in precipitation in the form of ice and snow in high latitudes. There is experimental support from the Danish geophysicists in the cosmic ray experiment. A number of heavy duty labs wil continue the experimental work when the Hadron collider start up again in (July).
Incidently , the Danish experiment inn their basement cloud chamber published in Britain was not negated by an afterthought artical by George Monbiot in “The Guardian”. George Monbiot has misspoken the Danish research whether by mistake or design from the very start because it does not fit his model of single world government. There has never been any experinmental support for CO2 as a greenhouse gas.* If you caN FIND ANY, POST IT. To the contrary, co2 does not seem to matter at all EXCEPT TO POLITICIANS.
* Something I wondered at myself.
A few of you ought to click on over to Roy Spencer’s Q & A page
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
and scroll down to the CO2 part – it is about a page after the picture of the big white bear chasing the man around his pickup. All the Qs & As are worth reading but as several posts on this thread show there is a major misunderstanding about the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
Veizer has published his theory in Geoscience Canada, the journal of the Geological Association of Canada. The article is called Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle.
In his paper, he concludes: "Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
and scroll down to the CO2 part – it is about a page after the picture of the big white bear chasing the man around his pickup. All the Qs & As are worth reading but as several posts on this thread show there is a major misunderstanding about the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
Climate change science isn't settled
MANY people think the science of climate change is settled. It isn't. And the issue is not whether there has been an overall warming during the past century. There has, although it was not uniform and none was observed during the past decade. The geologic record provides us with abundant evidence for such perpetual natural climate variability, from icecaps reaching almost to the equator to none at all, even at the poles.
The climate debate is, in reality, about a 1.6 watts per square metre or 0.5 per cent discrepancy in the poorly known planetary energy balance.Cosmic rays set climate change on Earth
In 2003, scientists from NASA and the University of Kansas suggested that cosmic rays "influence cloud formation, can affect climate and harm live organisms directly via increase of radiation dose," an effect they claim to trace over millions of years of fossil history.Veizer has published his theory in Geoscience Canada, the journal of the Geological Association of Canada. The article is called Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle.
In his paper, he concludes: "Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate...
- A stellar revision of the story of life
- Quantum computing forges ahead
- Climate Physics 101
- Yet another trick of cosmic rays
- Cosmic rays sank the Titanic
- What Language on Mars? (2)
- Dying comets probe the Sun
- The Sun and auroras for beginners
- Utopia beats Dystopia
- Royal Society Winton Book Prize
- Sausages without the pig
- Editors’ personal opinions
- Hoodwinked by Berkeley Earth
- The long pause in warming confirmed
- Further attempt to falsify the Svensmark hypothesis
- Do clouds disappear? (4)
- CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action
- “No, you mustn’t say what it means!”
- Target comet spotted
- Sorting out the Svensmarks Junior
- A stellar revision of the story of life
- Counterforce
- CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action
- What did Hawking discover?
- Mother tongue
- RSS links via Netvibes
- A stellar revision of the story of life 7 months ago
- Quantum computing forges ahead 9 months ago
- Climate Physics 101 9 months ago
- Yet another trick of cosmic rays 9 months ago
- Cosmic rays sank the Titanic 9 months ago
- What Language on Mars? (2) 10 months ago
- Dying comets probe the Sun 10 months ago
Sequence
01/05/2010
The Svensmark hypothesis
Sequence of discoveries
The connection between cosmic rays and the cloud cover observed by satellites was announced at a space science meeting in 1996 and published in the following year (Henrik Svensmark & Eigil Friis-Christensen 1997).
The report’s title called the discovery the “missing link” because it
solved a big puzzle for climate researchers, as to how the Sun could
exert an impact on climate that empirically exceeded by a wide margin
the effect of variations* in solar brightness measured by satellites.
* My biggest problem with the `science`of co2 warming replicated in a different model
Friends of Science
Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
Save the scientific method from Big Green propaganda and faulty science.
The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Carbon Dioxide has nominal impact on temperature.
DOHA - Save the Planet from Global Warming Dogma
SIX THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE:1. The earth is cooling. Click here.
2. The Sun causes climate change. Click here.
3. Al Gore was wrong about CO2. Click here.
4. Violent weather isn’t getting worse. Click here.
5. It’s been hotter. Click here.
6. Climate computer models are proven wrong. Click here.
Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago
Experiments conducted in the early 20th Century by scientists including R.W. Wood and Niels Bohr proved that “greenhouse” gases like CO2 cannot increase air temperature by “trapping” infrared radiation. The results of R.W. Wood’s research were published in Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320 - back when science relied on experiments, not computer models. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Empirical science proves that CO2 will not warm our atmosphere by trapping IR. The Earth will continue to warm and cool according to the natural cycles of the sun, the oceans, volcanism, orbital variations, and numerous other natural factors. The 0.038 percent concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a drop in the bucket and totally irrelevant and insignificant.
Related articles
Climate Tyranny Avoids Scrutiny(papundits.wordpress.com)
Stop Meeting with the U.N. on Climate Change(papundits.wordpress.com)
'Recklessly slow' climate talks as greenhouse gases hit new high(independent.co.uk)
Remembering Jerry Mahlman, 1940-2012(climatesciencewatch.org)
Climate Change: Snapshot Of Wins And Losses At Doha Talks - Analysis(eurasiareview.com)
CSG worries hinge on timing of climate change(abc.net.au)
You: Coasting to climate disaster(japantimes.co.jp)
Plants will be hard put to handle global warming gas(azstarnet.com)
Qatar seeks to extend Kyoto to break climate change deadlock(reuters.com)
How the Koch Brothers Manipulate Climate Change Studies(nakedcapitalism.com)
Posts
CBS’ Charles Osgood on the Sun – and a surprising suggestion