In amongst an article that contains yet another straw-man attack on cosmic rays via the BBC, there is something more interesting reported from the European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting.
In periods of relatively intense particle activity, some areas of the Earth’s surface in both the Arctic and Antarctic are warmer while others become colder, showing differences of up to 2C or 3C compared to the long-term averages.
In periods of unusually low particle activity, the patterns are reversed.
The mechanism appears to be redistributing heat across the polar regions; there is no evidence for any overall warming or cooling, Dr Seppala added, nor that the scale of the effect has changed over time.
“The results were amazing, and I think it’s something significant that we have to take into account,” commented Katje Matthes from the Free University of Berlin, who chaired the EGU session which saw the new data presented.
“I think it’s rather a local effect,” she added, “and I don’t think it has a big impact on global temperatures.”
Read more here:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“head up” and wonders whether they undestand plasma physics.
The BBC article begins with study of deep space cosmic rays in refutation Svensmark-Christensen. I believe the latter investigators are more interested in the high-energy protons borne by the solar wind. Nearing solar minima earth-facing coronal holes are common, until they disappear altogether, and auroal activity is an indication, by consequence of high-energy electrons also present.
The EGU study reinforces one a few months back measuring these events in teraWatts. Cool.
In order for cloud to form certain conditions must be met and the two most important are temperature and humidity.
Cosmic rays are not likely to have any effect if the temperature and/or humidity are inappropriate.
The first step in any attempted refutation of the hypothesis of a cosmic ray influence should be to filter out all the situations where the primary conditions were not met. Was this done? It’s not clear from any of these reports.
So are there any data on Cosmic ray intensity in the recent past?
“I think it’s rather a local effect,” she added, “and I don’t think it has a big impact on global temperatures.”
—- depends on where the GISS thermometer is, doesn’t it.
Mr T, “So are there any data on Cosmic ray intensity in the recent past? ”
Here is the putative broom. I’m still looking for the GCR data.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
at lest this is up to date.
For what it’s worth,
Cosmic rays have little affect on the earth’s climate. Variations in this measured factor simply reflect modulations of the solar influence in an electromagnetetic sense.
Do cosmic rays influence cloud cover?
No.
It’s like the miss-correlation of CO2 with GMT.
A logical fallacy based in ignorance.
Should have said modulations “by” the solar influence…………..
Sorry 🙂
Cosmic rays are a general classification including gamma rays or high-energy photons, atomic nuclei, i.e., protons, neutrons, alpha particles on up. It is an open ended class indicating extraterrestrial origin.
Those coming from deep space arise in novae supernovae, hypernovae, Seyfert galaxies, on and on. All such events are brief, episodic emissions.
Earth-facing coronal holes, however, are events lasting to days. When the IMF at solar minimum flips south a conduit can exist for periods of hours in which the highly twisted poloidal field of the IMF links with a weakened Geomagnetic field end-to-end.
The Big Bear Earthshine project verifies an increasing albedo concommitant with the decline in solar activity this millenia:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=earthshine+big+bear+albedo
Certainly low volcanism could account for higher than average stratospheric absorption in the visible spectrum and effect some of the observed rise but the majority must be thought due to increased cloudiness, particularly stratospheric.
Australian studies have also shown insolation to correlate with temperature better than any other of the usual suspects.
Does this amount to proof of the S F-C theory? No, but my reasoning from evidence is better than yours.
Gary Gulrud
Your reasoning is better than mine?
Oh? Proof of the S F-C theory?
Your ball.
Luky lukems, where are you? This is too funny for words. Whereas you have been quoting about me here from the Svalgaard threads on Climate Audit, others are quoting me from the same threads on their blogs. Observe: http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2008/03/dalton-minimum.html
Louis:
First, I misstated in above comment, inverting the relation of plinic volcanism and stratospheric absorption.
“Reasoning from evidence”: simple really, present evidence, w/citations if possible, but if sufficiently explicit, Google may preclude that need.
Next, describe the means by which the evidence becomes important, noteworthy. This may require expansion if one’s manner of expression is elliptic.
In general, however, deliberately obtuse replies do not incite.
Luke was waving the latest NOAA numbers around like that meant something. He said that March was coming in like hell fire, which is kind of odd considering we haven’t broken room temperature in April as of yet. Paul has it snowing in Scotland.
So that leaves N. America, and Europe out of the NCDC sweepstakes for record breaking heat.
All that’s left is an angry red patch of Siberia, and a smattering of Alaska, which we have just been informed by the Beeb is directly heated by cosmic ray.
Wither goes the global warming?
Betcha if you subtract out 3 degrees Celcius from those NCDC hot spots there isn’t any.
Following James M.: Even the normally obedient Germans are breaking ranks:
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/das-met-office-hat-seine-hardcrut3-datenbasis-der-giss-nasa-datenbasis-angeglichen/
I understand the blogger is updating this story as data is ‘adjusted’ (can’t read much Deutsch myself).
The GISS March 08 data is rumored to be missing ‘grossly anomalous’ data from SH. Nobody lives there, ya know, to protest.
Whew!
for a minute I thought I was obtuse.
Shaviv’s reply to Sloan:
http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale
The dam has a bulge:
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=44222
The ground at the dam’s base is squishy:
http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/AboutDenmark/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/ClimateResearch/CosmicRaysAndClimate/
Little Dutch boy, theres a leak!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/03dec_magneticcracks.htm
Little Dutch boy, theres a leak!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/03dec_magneticcracks.htm