The effect of solar cycles on cloud formation.
The research team led by Jacob Svensmark of DTU identified the strongest 26 “Forbush Decreases” between 1987 and 2007, and looked at ground-based and satellite records of cloud cover to see what happened. In a recent press release, their conclusions were summarized as follows: “[Strong “Forbush Decreases”] cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.”
A similar study in April was criticized by Watts Up With That? in April.
If true and put simply, solar cycle activity sweeps cosmic rays away from Earth. More cosmic rays leads to cloud formations so lots of cosmic rays hitting Earth = lots of clouds.
We are currently in a weak Solar Cycle 24 with 25 predicted to be weaker.
This is real science concerning a major natural climate driver (cloud cover) that no IPCC computer model addresses. The understanding of cosmic rays causing cloud formation didn’t exist as anything more than a theory a couple of years ago until confirmed by experimentation at the Large Hadron Collider on the France-Swiss border. I remember reading about the results on WUWT and thinking what a huge game changer that would be…only to not be surprised by how loudly the media yawned and glazed over a huge leap ahead in climate understanding. But then again the ramifications is that man-caused CO2 driven warming really is a much smaller drop in the bucket than currently advertised. And we can’t have that. Governments of the World must remain empowered to save us from ourselves even if there’s nothing to save us from.
i predict more house fires as people move to candles, biomass burning to avoid cha-ching carbon taxes on electricity, natural gas.
I’ve been following Svensmark since “The Chilling Stars” came out in 2007. He is the only scientist that has posited an explanatory mechanism that actually follows the scientific method, i.e., observation, hypothesization, experimentation, adaptation (of hypotheses to facts, not of facts to hypotheses a la the CAGW mob), publication.
A 2% solar-origin alteration in cloud cover via the GCR mechanism would explain nearly all of the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and would also explain the identical temperature trendlines of the early 20th and late 20th/early 21st century, despite the vastly different anthropogenic CO2 production figures during those two periods. It would also explain why we’ve had a pause in ‘GW’ since 1998, despite a 10% increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration (which, incidentally, definitively falsifies the central contention of the AGW hypothesis as posited by, inter alia, the IPCC).
But it’s actual data, and it’s publicly available (so NASA can’t alter it post-facto, as they seem to be intent on doing with temperature measurements) so expect the climate mafia to ignore it. When they’re not waving their tie-dyed pitchforks and shrieking ‘heretic’.
And expect Svensmark to (continue to) be ignored. Because his theory doesn’t allow Obozo, Trudope, or Wynne-ing! to justify raising your taxes in the interest of placating Gaia.
I try to be careful jumping on research that supports my scientific/political bias. That’s when you should use more, not less, scepticism so you don’t fool yourself. That’s where progressives and liberals have gone wrong with CAGW. They uncritically support every new pro-CAGW catastrophic research paper, no matter how bizarre. Basically, they claim “CO2’s Wrath” at every weather event and changes in a species location or number with the veracity that rivals the scientific blindness of invoking “God’s Will/ God’s Wrath” in the pre-scientific era. Like those fire and brimstone preachers, they don’t even bother to look any further to see if there’s other possiblities and viscously attack anyone who proposes an alternate, non-CAGW, explanation.
I think the cosmic ray/cloud cover connection is ignored even though it would improve the climate change models accuracy if it’s true. I don’t know if it’ll be proved correct or not but cloud cover, like ocean currents, is a big grey area in climate change models. It’s interesting that CAGW alarmists will jealously defend changing sea surface temp data to using ocean going ship’s uncalibrated temperature records instead of using scientifically deployed ARGO’s data in the Pause Busting adjustment of global temperature but attack the idea that the sun and it’s phases may be significant.
CO_2 is a minor greenhouse gas (for god’s sake people, get a molecule with a permanent dipole moment – e.g. WATER), but a great political molecule. We exhale CO_2, the only power sources that don’t ultimately produce CO_2 are hydro and nuclear, so control over CO_2 is control over all human activity and even human life – you sir, you are producing too much CO_2! Off with your head!!
Despite growing ice caps and a cool Atlantic, we are told every year is the warmest on record. Why do the warmists have to insult us with such blatant lies?
Dr Leif Svalgaard is not predicting weaker SC25.
http://www.leif.org/research/ – See item #2430 Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.ppt
On page #24:
“Preliminarily it looks like a repeat of Cycle 24, or at least not any smaller.”
Actually, Hydro does produce CO2, as well as about m10 other chemicals, the turbine knock these products out of the flow mechanically. T’is why there is always warmer temps down river from the Niagara PGS.
DN, Dave, Jo Nova’s husband did some interesting work that appears to correlate to solar activity, but in a delayed manner. Climate is chaotic and very complex, so so called climate scientist like to ignore many factors so they don’t have to run a program too often, like about 50 life times:-))) As 1 mathematician stated, that with current tech. it would take a billion years to run 10 years worth of climate modeling.
Good discussion. And the debate continues about CO2 and climate change. But let’s not forget the very real concerns about the acidification of the oceans and CO2’s impact there.
30 Scientific Papers Reveal Inverse CO2 – Sea Level Signal: As CO2 Rises, Sea Level Falls
http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/29/30-scientific-papers-reveal-inverse-co2-sea-level-signal-as-co2-rises-sea-level-falls/#sthash.151pBHtE.dpbs
In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a non-correlation — or inverse correlation — for CO2 and sea level (as CO2 rises, sea levels fall) has been reported by scientists for dozens of locations across the globe just in the last few years alone.
But not only is the CO2-rise-causes-sea-level-rise AGW supposition dubious, so is the entire paradigm of an alarming and catastrophic human-caused sea-level rise future.
Providing the various Eco-wacko groups(Sierra Club,Greenpeace,EDF Etc want us to reject the sattlite data and beleive only their gurus sitting in the middle of their HQ in some major city and while Greenpeace putters around the world in their deisel poered ships and luanch their zodiacs with their gasoline engines Leonardo DiCaprio,Al Gore and company flying all over the world over this Climate Change poppycock Hot Air and Hyporicy