Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 11:55 am
You last visited January 24, 2017, 10:05 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"The Sun Moves Climate Change


Wonder how AlBore and his team of Chicken Little scaremongers will spin this? 

"The Sun Moves Climate Change

January 5, 2007
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post

Source SteveQuayle.com

Man produces greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases cause global warming, most scientists agree, but how, exactly, do greenhouse gases cause global warming? While theories abound, as do elaborate computer models incorporating a multitude of gases and other climatic factors, none has been conclusive. And if greenhouse gases aren't responsible, what else could be? A clear, verifiable mechanism showing how a greenhouse gas or other physical entity can drive climate change has eluded science. Until now.

For more than a decade, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center has been pursuing an explanation for why Earth cools and warms. His findings -- published in October in the Proceedings of the Royal Society -- the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the Royal Society of London -- are now in, and they don't point to us. The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. Dr. Svensmark's study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun's magnetic field -- quite apart from greenhouse gases -- could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures. The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, the chief agency investigating global warming, then castigated them in the press, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible." Others accused them of denouncing the greenhouse theory, something they had not done.

Svensmark and his colleague had arrived at their theory after examining data that showed a surprisingly strong correlation between cosmic rays --highspeed atomic particles originating in exploded stars in the Milky Way -- and low-altitude clouds. Earth's cloud cover increased when the intensity of cosmic rays grew and decreased when the intensity declined.

Low-altitude clouds are significant because they especially shield the Earth from the sun to keep us cool. Low cloud cover can vary by 2% in five years, affecting the Earth's surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square metre during that same period. "That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution," Dr. Svensmark explained.

The Danish scientists put together several well-established scientific phenomena to arrive at their novel 1996 theory. The sun's magnetic field deflects some of the cosmic rays that penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, and in so doing it also limits the immense amounts of ions and free electrons that the cosmic rays produce. But something had changed in the 20th century: The sun's magnetic field more than doubled in strength, deflecting an extraordinary number of rays. Could the diminution of cosmic rays this century have limited the formation of clouds, making the Earth warmer?

That was a plausible theory. But exactly how cosmic rays might create clouds was a mystery -- an unprovable theory, many said. Some even claimed that it was inconceivable for cosmic rays to influence cloud cover.

To discover a mechanism, a team at the Danish National Space Center assembled by Dr. Svensmark undertook an elaborate laboratory experiment in a reaction chamber the size of a small room. The team duplicated the chemistry of the lower atmosphere by injecting the gases found there in the same proportions, and adding ultraviolet rays to mimic the actions of the sun.

What they found left them agape: A vast number of floating microscopic droplets soon filled the reaction chamber. These were ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules -- the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei-- that had been catalyzed by the electrons released by cosmic rays.

We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work," Dr. Svensmark remarked. For the first time ever, researchers had experimentally identified a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere. "This is a completely new result within climate science."

Dr. Svensmark has never disputed the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. To the contrary, he believes that an understanding of the sun's role is needed to learn the full story, and thus determine man's role. Not only does no climate model today consider the effect of cosmic particles, but even clouds are too poorly understood to be incorporated into any serious climate model.

Because of the work of Dr. Svensmark, other agencies are now building on the Danish findings. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, has just started a multi-phase project that begins with a rerun of the Danish experiment, only CERN will use an accelerator rather than relying on natural cosmic rays. This multinational project will provide scientists with a permanent facility for studying effects of cosmic rays and charged particles in the Earth's atmosphere.

The clouds may be lifting on scientific inquiry into climate change. "


Entry #742


Rick GComment by Rick G - January 26, 2007, 12:21 pm
First of all, that was a very funny picture at the beginning of your blog.

This may sound stupid but I'll say it anyway. High School Biology taught us that photosynthesis involves absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Population expansion has removed a lot of the vegetation that performs this atmosphere-cleansing process for us.

My question is, why do we mow our lawns, clear our brush, pull our weeds? Aren't we contributing to global warming by unnecessarily removing vegetation for appearance sake? This may be small scale as an individual effect but on a world-wide basis aren't we cutting down a rain forest?

My suggestion is to make it an undesirable practice to remove any live vegetation without a need. The added benefit is that we don't have to do any more yard work except for planting new growth.

In the year 2025 maybe it would be considered an ecologically cool thing to have your yard overrun with grass and weeds. Maybe by then the planet and our survival will be more important than the landscaping appearance of our front yards.

Just a thought.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2007, 12:39 pm
I tend to agree with you but am sure there are gated community inhabitants with manicured yards who might not. Not too many years ago we had livestock eating grass we now mow providing life's necessities in the cycle of life. I jokingly say let a goat cut the grass and roast 'em when it grows big enough.

A close friend who's well read says we have more trees now than at the beginning of the 20th century, however there are many which have reached terminal growth and need to be replaced due to drought stresses, disease and drought infestation ..... so a good case for carefully planting and tending small ones which cost considerably less to purchase. They also transplant much more easily than large specimen types I've seen go through stress and never seem to take off.

Yes, less lawn and more islands with trees .... but ragweed has to be hosed with roundup!!
ToddComment by Todd - January 26, 2007, 1:07 pm
I seriously doubt mowing one's lawn has any effect on the Earth's climate whatsoever. However, I do believe that the massive deforestation taking place in 3rd world countries around the world does have an effect. Not just on things like CO2, but on water pollution, heat island effects, and thus on rainfall. In fact, I would say that all our SUVs put together is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the massive deforestation taking place. That is why things like the Kyoto (sp?) treaty is so completely ridiculous and useless.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2007, 3:08 pm
Thanks Todd, yes agree completely. My comment about trees was that the US has more due to replanting after harvesting. We have our priorities correct but third world countries do not and if the truth be known my bets are some of the industrially developing nations do not either.
Rick GComment by Rick G - January 26, 2007, 4:12 pm
Photosynthesis is photosynthesis. The more vegetation on the planet, the more photosynthesis that occurs. A 6" blade of grass will photosynthesize twice as much as a 3" blade of grass. There are no political or economic boundaries on this irrefutable chemical process.
jarasanComment by jarasan - January 26, 2007, 4:45 pm
We are 9th on the list of contributors to climate change, that's if everbody cuts their lawn. Now if only half of us cut their lawn then we drop to 18th, just kidding. (P.S.most photosynthesis occurs on the ocean) Anybody who thinks we can effect global climate change needs to have a good long talk with the dinosaurs and the termites. Dinosaurs roamed the Earth for millions of years and the termites are still here! I worry more about the caldera at Yellowstone than what the alarmists and human egotists are chicken littling' (new word) about. We've been around for a couple hundred thousand years, One should worry more about an asteroid that is headed this way right now. We are so due for a hit! It is how insignificant we are. It all boils down to odds. We can't take ourselves so seriously, you know dust to dust, ashes to ashes, eventually, guaranteed we will be stardust again. Live responsibly, but enjoy life while you are here because it is the only one we have and Al Bore: "Please stop scaring the children!" jarasan
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2007, 4:55 pm
I agree Rick, unless some scientist has discovered differently that fact holds true. One drawback to not cutting grass is that certain species of mosquitos breed profusely in the minute dew reservoirs of some species, others just hang around in it and wait around like Dracula.
jarasanComment by jarasan - January 26, 2007, 5:42 pm
Mosquitos used to have wingspans of over a foot. Ouch! Bring me more DEET.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2007, 6:07 pm
Jarasan, thanks for your comments!!! The ocean and photosynthesis ... never considered that. However I'm going to have nightmares over the info about mosquitos!!!
Rick GComment by Rick G - January 26, 2007, 9:31 pm
You guys have to move up north a little. The cold weather keeps the critters dormant for half a year.

Next weekend I want to see who's crying Global Warming up here when we get down to the sub-zero's.
konaneComment by konane - January 26, 2007, 9:36 pm
You're letting cold temps slide down our way this weekend, Rick!! Predicted lows in the 20's, possibility of some frozen wet something in some areas of north Georgia.... and we know if the wind changes direction it's no telling for the rest of us.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.