NC Media Watch

More evidence that cosmic rays influence our climate

Russ Steele

Professor Pulinets, from the Institute of Applied Geo- physics, Moscow, addressed the Schiller
Institute conference in Rüsselsheim, Germany, on 2 July 2011 and he asked an interesting question, Are Earthquakes Foreseeable? and then examines The Current State of Research.

Professor Pulinets discusses ionization in the atmosphere as part of his earthquake research.
One source of ionization is cosmic rays. He briefly examines the idea that cosmic rays
impact the climate. Here is one of his graphics from his paper showing the relationship of
rain fall to cosmic rays.


This is fascinating paper on the prediction of earth quakes. Highly recommend reading. It is
available here.

Cross posted at The Dalton Minimum Returns.

AGW warmer's denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Russ Steele

Dr. Roy Spencer is answering his critics at Watts Up With That by pointing out they are denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. My original post on Dr Spencer's paper is here.

So, we continue to be treated to news articles (e.g. here, and here.) quoting esteemed scientists
who claim to have found problems with our paper published in Remote Sensing, which shows huge
discrepancies between the real, measured climate system and the virtual climate system imagined
by U.N.-affilliated climate modelers and George Soros-affiliated pundits (James Hansen, Joe Romm, et al.)

Their objections verge on the bizarre, and so I have to wonder whether any of them actually read our paper.

I eagerly await their published papers which show any errors in our analysis.

Apparently, all they need to know is that our paper makes the U.N. IPCC climate models look bad. And we sure can’t have that!

What’s weird is that these scientists, whether they know it or not, are denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation.

Read the rest here, but Dr Spencer concludes:

If I’m a “denier” of the theory of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, so be it.
But as a scientist I’d rather deny that theory than deny the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Sun Spots, Big Sun Spots

Russ Steele

Space Weather is reporting the finest display of sunspots since 2006.

BIG SUNSPOTS: The finest display of sunspots since 2006 is underway. Three behemoth sunspot groups are transiting the sun's northern hemisphere, shown here in a July 31st image from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory:

Nature fogets it is a science journal

Russ Steele

Nature, the widely respected science journal, has a feature story and an unsigned editorial in its latest issue addressing The Heartland Institute’s contribution to the global debate over climate change. The
articles can be read for free here and here.

You can read the full defence of the Heartland's 800 page report Climate Change Reconsidered by Joseph Bast the institutes President here.

In my mind Bast makes the most important observation at the end of his analysis of Natures crtitique.

Finally, the editors declare they are in pursuit of “a theory that can explain observations of
the world,” whereas the skeptics seem content to point out gaps in that theory. “The
Heartland Institute and its ilk,” they say, “are not trying to build a theory of anything.” Well,
where to begin?

I am not a scientist, and it certainly is not my place to tell the editors of such an esteemed
publication as Nature what they ought to be about. But it is my understanding of the
scientific method that it proceeds by the falsification of hypotheses, not their defense by
every means possible, which is what Nature and regrettably other leading science journals
have resorted to in the case of man-made climate change. The goal ought not to be to
defend a hypothesis, but to test it, and if it fails, to consider competing hypotheses and test
those just as rigorously.

Nature, it seems to this nonscientist observer, has lost its way. Until the journal opens its
eyes, it will not be a serious voice on climate science.

 

Climate Change Computer Models Illogically Fudged

Russ Steele

I have written amy times about the fudge factors in the climate models that are being use to justify public policies to reduce green house gases, and the development of expensive job killing alternative energy resources.

Now Astrophysicist Joe Postma, in a paper titled The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (July 22, 2011) shows how climate modellers treated Earth like a star ignoring night and day temperature differences. He exposes the fudged equations, the and faux science that props up the man-made global warming scare industry.

John O'Sullivan writes about the paper in a guest post at the Climate Realists, explaining how Postma exposed the illogically fudged computer models.

In clearly written language, Postma shows how a basic equation of radiative physics, and the modelling techniques used for stellar atmospheres, have been applied incorrectly to our earth, and how in actuality, the bottom of the atmosphere is supposed to be warmer than the radiative average of the entire ensemble.

To compensate for these inherent flaws, rather than correcting them, most climatologists have argued for the existence of a radiation-enhancing “greenhouse effect”, a postulate that Postma demonstrates to be devoid of logic and coherent meaning since it contradicts (and even reverses) the laws of physics.

Skeptics hope that Postma’s alternative thermal model will lead to the birth of a new climatology, one that actually follows the laws of physics and properly physical modeling techniques.

We learned from the Climategate e-mails that the climate models were being fudged and now we have a paper that examines the models in more scientific detail. However, our local scientific stalker will not accept the paper's conclusion because it was not peer reviewed and published in one of her approved journals.  A copy of the paper is here for your review and examination. Do your own peer review. Does Postma's logic hold up?

Are these changes in the climate caused by fewer sunspots?

Russ Steele

According to Henrik Svensmark's theory, cosmic rays impact the formation of clouds on the earth. The cosmic rays come from the cosmos.  However, the solar wind modulates the number of cosmic rays that reach the atmosphere. When the sun is very active, with multiple sun spots, the solar wind is much stronger and deflects some of the cosmic rays.  A quiet sun, with fewer sunspots, results in more cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere.

More comic rays = more clouds = a cooler planet.

Solar Cycle 23 was long and drawn out with a slow start to Solar Cycle 24,  as shown in this graphic. You can also see that SC-24 is projected to be much lower in intensity than SC-23. The accumulative result is a weaker solar wind and more cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere.


With fewer sunspots, there should be more cosmic rays and more clouds according to the theory.  The question in my mind, are we seeing any signatures in the climate that indicate more clouds are cooling the planet?

Here are two data plots for your consideration, starting with ten years of average US temperatures.


Here is a plot of sea levels, which as you can see they are declining, indicating the oceans are cooling, however, these changes are lagging behind the decline in the sun spots. Just like it takes while for kettle on the stove to cool once the heat is removed, the oceans should also take some time to adjust to more cloud cover which is blocking the suns heat. 


The question is, are these changes the result of fewer sunspots and more cosmic rays that have created cooling clouds or some other factors. Stay Tuned! 

Long term cooling is on the way

Russ Steele

Dennis Avery writes in the Canada Free Press about the coming climate change bomb shell, as the results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN is published. The speculation is growing that the CLOUD results verify Henrik Svensmark, Danish Space Research Institute, theory that natural cosmic rays create tiny “cloud seeds” that when mixed with atmospheric gases and are bombarded with ultra-violet light create cooling clouds. 

Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet.

The full article is here, but Avery makes an important point in his article. It is the combination of the cosmic rays and the solar wind that can deflect or pass the cosmic rays. The stronger the solar wind, which are generated by a much more active sun, the more cosmic rays that are deflected and the fewer clouds generated to cool the earth. The opposit is true, the weaker the solar wind the more cosmic rays and thus more clouds.

Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active—and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.

I have written about the coming Grand Minimum at The Dalton Minimum Returns.  Three experiments have now validated the cosmic ray cloud connection.  We are in for some long term cooling. 

Hints that CLOUD experiment supports cosmic ray climate impact

Russ Steele

I have been following the results of the all the experments that infer cosmic rays have an implact on the earth climate ever since reading Chilling Stars by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. The book was about his research into the effects that cosmic rays have on cloud formation and resulting inpact on climate change. Chilling Stars co-author was Nigel Calder.

Here is the latest from Calder on the status of the CLOUD experiment that was to prove or disprove Svensmark's therory about the connection between cosmic rays and the earths climate.

Nigel Calder: CERN Chief Forbids “Interpretation” Of CLOUD Results

Although still very busy with other work, I keep looking out for results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, which is testing Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays help to make clouds. They are due for publication this summer. All I have just now is a startling remark by Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, in an interview by Welt Online a few days ago.

Here is a tidied-up Google Translate version of the relevant exchange.
Welt Online: The results of the so-called CLOUD experiment, exploring the formation of clouds, are awaited with great excitement. Could these results still be important for understanding global climate change?

Heuer: This is indeed a matter of understanding better the formation of clouds. In nature there are many parameters at work – including temperature, humidity, impurities and also cosmic radiation. In the experiment, CLOUD investigates the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, using radiation [meaning particles] coming from the accelerator. And in an experimental chamber one can study, under controlled conditions, how the formation of droplets depends on the radiation and particulate matter. The results will be published shortly. I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

Four quick inferences:
1) The results must be favourable for Svensmark or there would be no such anxiety about them.

2) CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.

3) The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.

4) The resulting publication may be rather boring.

While the results may be boring to some, there is going to be huge uproar in the climate change community if it is clear that that cosmic ray and cause cloud formation. That means that humans have litte or no influence over the earth climate. 

Calders comment from Calder's Update Blog

Texas Gov. Perry was in CA -- He gave some jobs advice, but could have given more.

Russ Steele

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made a swing through California last week amidst speculation he might run for president.  He was  giving Republican Legislator some advice on how to create Californians jobs.  All the while Texas has stolen dozens of California companies and tens of thousands of CA jobs.  While not taking great joy in this, Perry points out  that if California policies are causing firms to leave the State, then Texas will welcome them.

Some advice the Gov. Perry could have give our Democratic Legislators while he was here, involves some of those regulations, specifically AB-32 spawned regulations. In his  book Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, he writes that global warming is "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight."

Global warming is "flat out hogwash," says Perry.

I think that Gov. Perry should run for President.  He is a highly successful Governor, knows how to create jobs, knows that regulations are job killers and that global warming is "hogwash". I am with Dan Logue on this one,  Rick Perry for President! I am sure with a strong conservative President we can get our country back on track to prosperity, and stop trying to same planet by distributing nations wealthy using the phoney science of anthropogenic global warming.

What if it gets cooler, rather than warmer?

Russ Steele

A study released today from Stanford University claims the California wine industry will collapse due to global warming.  The abstract is here. This is the key point in the abstract:

We find that the projected warmth over the this period [2000-2039] results in the loss of suitable winegrape areas throughout much of California, including most counties in the high-value North Coast and Central Coast regions.

This claim is made despite the marked increase in California grape production of approximately 400% along the North Coast, 2500% along the Central Coast, 1500% in the Central Valley, and 800% in the Southern Valley of California over the past 30 years of global warming.

What if the computer models used in the Stanford study are wrong? What if in fact the planet is cooling?

Wine grapes, depending on the variety, require a range of degree days for the berries to mature with enough sugar to make great wine.  The scientist at UC Daves have developed a systems for determing the number of degree days need by grapes in California by region.  According to Wikipedia:

The system is based on the hypothesis that grapevines do not grow if the temperature is below 50 °F (10 °C). Days in the growing region (assumed under the system to be April 1 through October 31 in the Northern Hemisphere; October 1 through April 30 in the Southern Hemisphere) are assigned degree days according to the amount that the day's average temperature exceeds this threshold; one degree day per degree Fahrenheit over 50 °F. In places where SI units are preferred, degrees Celsius over 10 °C may be used, but should be multiplied by 1.8 to convert to Fahrenheit degree days for the following list. All days in the locale are then added up, with the sum used to determine the region's classification as follows:
    ▪    2,500 degree days or less: Region I
    ▪    2,501–3,000 degree days: Region II
    ▪    3,001–3,500 degree days: Region III
    ▪    3,501–4,000 degree days: Region IV
    ▪    Greater than 4,000 degree days: Region V
The system is used officially in California, and other United States growing regions. 

Most of the grapes in California are grown in Region II and Region III to take advantage of local conditions. Now suppose that the California climate cools by 2º to 4º C reducing the number of days when the temperature is above 10º C, thus reducting the number of degree days.  Region III grapes could be now growing under Region II conditions.    Region II grapes could be subjected to Region I conditions. Not ideal conditions for producing the best wine.

The earth has cooled over the past 15 year and there is a very good possibility that a Grand Minimum is in our future. During the last Grand Minimum, it was no longer possible to grow wine grapes in England, were grape are growing today in Southern England. 

Over the next ten year we could experience the loss of Sierra vineyards, unless they adopt mitigations measure and adjust varities to deal with changes in the number of avilable degree days. The real problem will be if they adopt the mitigation recommended in the Stanford Study to deal with global warming.

 H/T to The Hockey Schtick for the graphic.