THERE is a theory that the earth’s climate is influenced by cosmic rays that penetrate our atmosphere from outer space. In particular it is thought cosmic rays influence the production of cloud condensation nuclei with periods of higher cosmic rays penetration associated with more cloudiness. The power of what is known as the solar wind, the magnetic force associated with the sun, is thought to influence the extent to which these high-energy charged particles composed of protons, electrons, and ionized nuclei reach earth.
The theory has been based to a large extent on correlations between climate and sunspot cycles. There is now a research effort to establish a physically-plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate including through laboratory experiments in clouding at the Cern Cloud Facility in, Geneva, Switzerland. The theory and the experiments are explained in ‘Cosmic Rays and Climate’ by Jasper Kirkby, Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 28, pages 333-375.
I know of no equivalent research effort looking at establishing a causal link between carbon dioxide and climate.
This paper by Dr Kirby was first discussed here in a blog post by Paul Biggs on May 21 this year. I’ve only just properly discovered it – and thought it so good you should read about it a second time. I posted ‘Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate (Part 1)’ on April 13, 2008.
Perhaps this is way off the mark, but have a look at this recent note from NASA on ‘Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth’
Maybe this mechanism is part of the story?
I know of no equivalent research effort looking at establishing a causal link between carbon dioxide and climate. – then I am truly appalled by your ignorance. Start doing some learning here
Your link is to history.
What about a current research effort beyond computer modelling?
Louis Hissink says
These are well known phenomena in the Plasma Universe area of study. The ‘magnetic portals’ are Birkeland currents and have magntitudes of millions of amperes.
The sad thing is that NASA seems to think these things are novel, but if the communicated with the plasma engineers at Los Alamos Labs, they might get up to speed on this.
More information at //public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html
RW; a link to Spencer Weart; how quaint, how amusing, how droll; oh, you’re serious; how tragic.
Jennifer – my link is to a history of decades of research into the relationship between CO2 and climate. You want to know about a current research effort, to establish a link between CO2 and climate? You won’t find that, because it’s already established. Reinventing the wheel is a waste of time. The basic physics was worked out many decades ago. If you don’t believe the physics, that is one thing, but to deny that any research has ever taken place is just bizarre.
Louis Hissink says
RW: “You want to know about a current research effort, to establish a link between CO2 and climate? You won’t find that, because it’s already established.”
It has not been established at all as an empirical fact.
It is essentially the verification of Arhennius’ 1906 hypothesis that decreasing atmospheric CO2 causes ice ages, which if inverted, means that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming. Arhennius never proved it and demanded others disprove him.
However everyone seems to agree that it has been established, just like plate-tectonics is agreed to be a fact or that the big bang is a fact – big difference. Consensus about a scientific hypothesis is called pseudoscience.
But the pseudoscientists are in charge now and there is little anyone can do until the inherent flaws of the theories become manifest and we enter another period of enlightenment.
Thanks for posting that most interesting paper by Kirkby.
If C14 and Be10 really are good proxies for GCR, then temperatures over the past millenium
correlate at least as well with GCR as anything else.
Establishing that higher GCR actually does create more clouds, would make it a very valid alternative to CO2/GHG. As far as I know CO2/GHG is only invoked to explain recent warming, but clearly temps (and other climate variables) have been just as volatile over periods where CO2 was relatively stable.
It has not been established at all as an empirical fact. – your ignorance is staggering. Tyndall did that in 1859.
What exactly do you hope to achieve by preposterously claiming that 150 years of research just never happened? Do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?
Louis Hissink says
Supply evidence to support your point here, ie Tyndall’s work. Arhhenius proposed his hypothesis in 1906 so your ignorance might be the more staggering.
Have you ever heard of Google? You may find it rather useful in learning about Tyndall’s work.
The question remains unanswered: do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?
Louis Hissink says
RW: In science it is the proposer’, of an hypothesis, responsibility to provide the proof of their assertion. Demanding we search Google is a standard charlatan cop-out.
“Do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?”
What on earth you blathering about.
What am I blathering about? I’m trying to find out why you and Ms Marohasy are pretending to be unaware of the decades of research that has led to our current understanding of the Earth’s climate. I’ll ask the question one more time: do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?
Telling you to look up Tyndall is not science, it’s advice. If you choose not to follow that advice, that’s fine, your choice. But it is wise, when discussing science, to have read some of the literature.
Steve Schapel says
With all due respect, RW, you seem to be falling into the same confusion that a lot of carbophobic ideologues do. You appear to be talking about the so-called greenhouse effect. The existence of the greenhouse effect, and the mechanisms by which it operates, is one thing. The concept that increases in the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will result in catastrophic climate change, is another. Some people assume that one implies the other. It doesn’t. It is the second proposition, i.e. the AGW hypothesis, that I believe Jennifer and Louis were referring to.
Of course, proving the AGW hypothesis is very difficult, because it is patently false.
Louis Hissink says
I presume you consider Jennifer and I to be scientific illiterates?
We are not denying or unaware of decades of research in climate at all, we take, as Steve Schapelle, issue with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
The entry for Tyndall in Wikipedia (a problematical reference)
“Though perhaps initially wishing to understand how electromagnetism is able to act at a distance through the air, in the 1860s and 1870s Tyndall mostly studied air, and the earth’s atmosphere, and he produced a number of major scientific clarifications or discoveries about processes in the atmosphere:
Tyndall explained atmospheric heat in terms of the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He constructed the first ratio spectrophotometer which he used to measure the absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature.”
No mention of CO2 and as Jennifer and I would point out, that is indeed our point, that water vapour is the dominant forcing.
I do note that it is “temperature of air” which Tyndall wroite about, not the earth’s temperature that the “Useful Idiots” seem to believe is the crucial temperature.
As for your homily advising us to read the scientific literature, I would regard hardly anything in Wikipedia (via Google) as having any merit though I am a little surprised William Connelly hasn’t edited Tyndall’s entry for current political correctness, and perhaps I speak too soon.
Steve Schapel – no need to guess or speculate about what Jennifer was referring to – it was very clear in the original post: “I know of no equivalent research effort looking at establishing a causal link between carbon dioxide and climate.“. To believe such a statement, you have to believe that CO2 is not known to be a greenhouse gas.
Louis Hissink – I presume you consider Jennifer and I to be scientific illiterates? – if the cap fits, wear it. I will say nothing about Jennifer but in your case, you could probably miss out the word ‘scientific’. It does take a special talent to cut and paste nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons and then say No mention of CO2.
Even before the results are announced by Jasper Kirkby it is possible to make a weather forecast. Sunspots are fewest since 1954, which produced three La Nina years and the huge Maitland floods of 1955.
That is where we are heading, the next three years will be very damp in south-east Australia. Check out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its impact on our climate.
The rumor going the rounds is that this northern hemisphere winter will be severe and if solar cycle 24 doesn’t get underway before April next year then the Xmas of 2009 should see the Thames freeze over at London Bridge.
Wondering Aloud says
There is considerable research on the past effect of CO2 on climate. It clearly shows that as climate warms it results in increased CO2 levels. This is likely Lavosier’s principle in action. This must be what RW refers to, there is a clear link temp increase somehow leads to carbon dioxide increase.
We had a hypothesis that the CO2 caused the warming but so far the historic data doesn’t support this. In fact it seems to violate causality.
Those of us who have spent our careers in physics have a lot of doubt about your assumption that physics somehow magically supports your position.