Re: [asa] Serious scientists getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate

At 02:23 PM 1/16/2007, Pim wrote:
>"...much is made of the work by Friis and
>Christensen and an unfamiliarity can be detected
>with the rebuttals by for instance Damon and Laut.
>... There is just no excuse for not doing the research... "

@ Most of the "rebuttals" you provide are almost
10 years old. The latest is dated 2004. Those
were already referred to in the press release I
posted which was dated in early October
2006. There is just no excuse for not doing
legitimate research dated after 2004.

For instance, here is the latest:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
The Role of the Sun in Global Climate Change
Reviewed 17 January 2007

Reference
Bard, E. and Frank, M. 2006. Climate change and
solar variability: What's new under the sun?
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 248: 1-14.

Background
Lastovicka (2006), in broadly summarizing recent
advancements in the field, has recently written
that "new results from various space and
ground-based experiments monitoring the radiative
and particle emissions of the sun, together with
their terrestrial impact, have opened an exciting
new era in both solar and atmospheric physics,"
stating that "these studies clearly show that the
variable solar radiative and particle output
affects the earth's atmosphere and climate in many fundamental ways."

What was done
In a review of this broad area of research, Bard
and Frank consider "changes on different time
scales, from the last million years up to recent
decades," and in doing so "critically assess
recent claims that the variability of the sun has
had a significant impact on global climate."

What was learned
"Overall," in the judgment of the two
researchers, the role of solar activity in
causing climate change "remains unproven."
However, as they state in the concluding sentence
of their abstract, "the weight of evidence
suggests that solar changes have contributed to
small climate oscillations occurring on time
scales of a few centuries, similar in type to the
fluctuations classically described for the last
millennium: the so-called Medieval Warm Period
(900-1400 A.D.) followed on by the Little Ice Age (1500-1800 A.D.)."

What it means
The measured judgment of Bard and Frank seems to
us to be right on mark. The subject they treat is
so complex that most theories of solar forcing of
climate change must be considered to be as yet
"unproven." It would also be well for climate
alarmists to admit the same about the role of
rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations in driving
recent global warming, especially in light of
Bard and Frank's conclusion that "solar
fluctuations were involved in causing widespread
but limited climatic changes, such as the Little
Ice Age (1500-1800 A.D.) that followed the
Medieval Warm Period (900-1400 A.D.)," for if it
is fairly certain that the sun was responsible
for creating these multi-centennial cold and warm
periods, it is clear it could easily be
responsible for the global warming of the past
century or so, which has yet to return the earth
to the level of warmth experienced during the
<http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp>Medieval
Warm Period, when there was 100 ppm less CO2 in
the air than there is today, which CO2 deficit -
according to the climate-alarmist way of thinking
- should have made it even more difficult to
sustain the higher-than-current temperatures of that earlier warm period.

Reference
Lastovicka, J. 2006. Influence of the sun's
radiation and particles on the earth's atmosphere
and climate - Part 2. Advances in Space Research 37: 1563.
Reviewed 17 January 2007

~ Janice

At 01:10 PM 1/16/2007, Janice Matchett wrote:

>These are the results of a controlled experiment
>by serious scientists, not some GIGO
>(garbage-in/garbage-out) computer climate
>modeling. They experimentally demonstrate how
>the cause of global warming or "climate change" is the sun:
>
>Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate October 2006
>http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate
>
>
>Experimental evidence shows that cosmic rays
>from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere.
>
>An essential role for remote stars in everyday
>weather on Earth has been revealed by an
>experiment at the Danish National Space Center
>in Copenhagen. It is already well-established
>that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed
>atomic particles originating in exploded stars
>far away in the Milky Way, penetrate the Earth’s
>atmosphere, they produce substantial amounts of
>ions and release free electrons. Now, results
>from the Danish experiment show that the
>released electrons play a significan role in
>promoting the formation of building blocks for
>cloud condensation nuclei, on which water vapor
>condenses to make clouds. Hence, a causal
>mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate
>the production of clouds in Earth’s atmosphere
>has been experimentally identified for the first time.
>
>The Danish team officially announced their
>discovery on Wednesday in Proceedings of the
>Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society,
>(the UK´s national academy of science).
>
>The experiment
>
>The experiment called SKY (Danish for ‘cloud’)
>took place in a large reaction chamber which
>contained a mixture of gases at realistic
>concentrations to imitate the chemistry of the
>lower atmosphere. Ultraviolet lamps mimicked the
>action of the Sun’s rays. During experimental
>runs, instruments traced the chemical action of
>the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.
>The data revealed that electrons released by
>cosmic rays act as catalysts, which
>significantly accelerating the formation of
>stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid
>and water molecules which are the building
>blocks for cloud condensation nuclei. A vast
>numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared,
>floating in the air in the reaction chamber.
>‘We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with
>which the electrons do their work of creating
>the building blocks for the cloud condensation
>nuclei,’ says team leader Henrik Svensmark, who
>is Director of the Center for Sun-Climate
>Research within the Danish National Space
>Center. ‘This is a completely new result within climate science.’
>
>A missing link in climate theory
>
>The experimental results lend strong empirical
>support to the theory proposed a decade ago by
>Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen
>that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate
>through their effect on cloud formation. The
>original theory rested on data showing a strong
>correlation between variation in the intensity
>of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere
>and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud
>cover increases when the intensity of cosmic
>rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.
>It is known that low-altitude clouds have an
>overall cooling effect on the Earth’s surface.
>Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by
>cosmic rays can change the surface temperature.
>The existence of such a cosmic connection to the
>Earth’s climate might thus help to explain past
>and present variations in the Earth’s climate.
>Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the
>Sun’s magnetic field (which shields Earth from
>cosmic rays) more than doubled, thereby reducing
>the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting
>reduction in cloudiness, especially of
>low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor
>in the global warming Earth has undergone during
>the last century. Until now, however, there has
>been no experimental evidence of how the causal
>mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.
>
>‘Many climate scientists have considered the
>linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate
>as unproven,’ comments Eigil Friis-Christensen,
>who is now Director of the Danish National Space
>Center. ‘Some said there was no conceivable way
>in which cosmic rays could influence cloud
>cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do
>so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray
>connection firmly onto the agenda of
>international climate research.’ [end quote]
>
>Remember, there are two separate arguments made
>by the global warming crowd: that there is in
>fact global warming, and that we humans are the
>cause. Thus their argument is called
>Anthropogenic (man-made) Warming. And thus they
>argue for shutting down human activity that
>generates the dreaded "greenhouse gas" of CO2 (carbon dioxide).
>
>This argument has always been beyond stupid
>because CO2 accounts for less than 3% of
>greenhouse gases. 80% of such gases is water
>vapor, for which man is not responsible.
>Further, the earth has been warming since the
>end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s, yet
>there was no appreciable increase in atmospheric
>CO2 until over a century later in the mid-1900s.
>
>With an experimentally-verified alternate
>explanation to anthropogenic warming, the
>arguments of the global warming crowd for
>shutting down the world's economy (America's in
>particular) have been blown out of the water.
>
>No wonder the enviros are getting pathologically
>hysterical, now demanding that "global warming
>deniers" be criminally prosecuted in
>Nuremberg-type war crime trials. (Google "global
>warming deniers" + "Nuremberg" and you'll get 18,000 hits.)
>
>The Svensmark-Christensen experiments are also
>important in that they will generate a
>constituency for solar warming within the
>scientific community - namely, high-energy physicists.
>
>The way things have been, all the money has been
>flowing to anthropogenic warming research.
>
>Money for particle accelerators has been in short supply.
>
>To study cosmic rays requires such accelerators,
>because cosmic rays can carry billions of
>electron volts. Some have been recorded at 1020
>electron volts, and there is no current
>explanation of how those massive energies are generated.
>
>Thus high-energy physicists are going to jump at
>the opportunity for funding and thus argue
>against man-made global warming. So much for
>scientific
>"consensus." ..."
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723443/posts?page=31#31
>
>~ Janice ... which probably explains why more
>and more embarrassed scientist are defecting
>from belief in human induced "Global Warming"
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200610/0290.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 16 17:45:31 2007