Henrik Svensmark

[Blade]

Henrik Svensmark made a documentary about his hypothesis that cosmic ray's make part of the cloud earosoils

 

the documentary is called: The Cloud Mystery

 

Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0

 

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

 

what do you experts think about this?

 

is it great to think we (earth) are more of a part of the cosmos then we think?

[Mokele]

No trend in cosmic rays as Earth warms

 

More problems

 

And more

 

Still more

 

Basically, it doesn't add up.

[ecoli]

... cloud earosoils ...

 

Dirty ears?

[JohnB]

Basically, it doesn't add up.

Not totally, no. I do think that there is the germ of an idea there though. It does require more research. (Which is being done.)

 

One thing that seems often missed in these debates is the fact that we are discussing very small changes. The 2.4 (?) W/M² in crease over the last century is only about a .8% change. Hence a change in cloud cover of 1% may have a comparitively large effect.

 

I notice that Gavin in the first article doesn't correct his wrong statement about the "high" concentrations of SO2 and O3, even though a co-author of the paper gives the actual concentrations used. Eli does update his page, but people have to follow the link to see that.

 

I also note that Rasmus (whoever he might be in reality) takes Svensmark to task over adjustments. Considering that Gavins organisation adjusts temps all the way back to 1880 something every month, that's amusing. But what can you expect from an advertising company?

 

Be that as it may, the biggest hole in Svensmarks idea is the simple fact that statistically, GCR hasn't gone anywhere. If you want to link a rise in GCR to a rise in temp, then you first need a rise in GCR. AFAICT, this has not happened.

 

By using the graph in the third RC article, we can also note that Cloud Cover was at a maximum in 1998. This should, by Svensmarks ideas have led to some cooling. 1998 was also the year of the large El Nino and temps skyrocketed.

 

One could then reasonably conclude that even if the GCR effected cloud cover leading to cooling, the effect is weak and easily swamped by the El Nino and/or other forcings.

 

I think he might by right in his idea, but I think he is wrong in his estimation of the magnitude of the effect. If GCR is a measurable forcing, I doubt it's effect would account for more than, say, 5%? (And even that is a guess)

[Blade]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html

 

Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't weather forecasters and they can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.

 

Scientists how work in reliant fields should look in to this and Henrik Svensmark's work.

 

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest

 

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Blade
more sources