0 Points

Over de 'indirecte' invloed van de zon (klimaat)

Author

Comment

Daniel De Caluwe

Over de 'indirecte' invloed van de zon (klimaat)

Lead

[-]

Member

03/07/06 21:02:48

Administrator

Tags : None

Remove this ad

Hier volgt mijn vroegere bijdrage (2003) over de fameuze 'indirecte' invloed van de zon:

OVER KOSMISCHE STRALING EN DE BEWOLKINGSGRAAD

(Zoekwoorden: Paal Brekke, Henrik Svensmark, indirecte invloed van de Zon, kosmische straling en bewolkingsgraad, enz)

I. KRITIEK VAN HET IPCC : HET EFFECT IS NOG ONZEKER

In verband met dit onderwerp wil ik toch eerst even bespreken waarom het IPCC dit nog niet opgenomen heeft:

De mening van het IPCC is te vinden in deze link: Cosmic rays and clouds (IPCC 2001) (link aanklikken a.u.b.).

Deze link, die ik vroeger (zie: DSO forum archief : 'Moeten we bang zijn voor het warme weer?') ook al gegeven heb, legt duidelijk uit dat er nog véél onzekerheid bestaat over deze invloed. Om te weten wat de top van de wetenschappelijke wereld denkt, citeer ik even uit deze link :

However, it was not possible to intercalibrate the different data sets so the validity of the extended data set as a measure of variations in absolute total cloudiness is open to question

There has been a long-term decrease in cosmic ray flux since the late 17th century, as evidenced by the 10Be and 14C cosmogenic isotope records (Stuiver and Reimer, 1993; Beer et al., 1994), and this mirrors the long-term increase in TSI. However, the TSI reconstruction of Hoyt and Schatten (1993), which is based on solar cycle lengths, does not appear to track the cosmogenic isotope records any more closely than that of Lean et al. (1995), which is based on sunspot cycle amplitude (Lean and Rind, 1998). Such use of different solar indices may help to identify which physical mechanisms, if any, are responsible for the apparent meteorological responses to solar activity.

Kuang et al. (1998) have repeated Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's analysis of ISCCP data and showed high correlations with an El Niño-Southern Osciallation (ENSO) index difficult to distinguish from the GCR flux. Farrar (2000) showed that the pattern of change in cloudiness over that period, particularly in the Pacific Ocean, corresponds to what would be expected for the atmospheric circulation changes characteristic of El Niño. Kernthaler et al. (1999) have also studied the ISCCP dataset, using both geostationary and polar orbiter data and suggested that the correlation with cosmic ray flux is reduced if high latitude data are included. This would not be expected if cosmic rays were directly inducing increases in cloudiness, as cosmic ray flux is greatest at high latitudes. Kernthaler et al. (1999), Jørgensen and Hansen (2000), and Gierens and Ponater (1999), also noted that a mechanism whereby cosmic rays resulted in greater cloud cover would be most likely to affect high cloud as ionisation is greatest at these altitudes. Even if high cloud did respond to cosmic rays, it is not clear that this would cause global cooling as for thin high cloud the long-wave warming effects dominate the short-wave cooling effect. Kristjánsson and Kristiansen (2000) have additionally analysed the ISCCP D2 dataset, 1989 to 1993, and found little statistical evidence of a relationship between GCRs and cloud cover with the possible exception of low marine clouds in mid-latitudes. They also noted that there was no correlation between outgoing long-wave radiation, as represented in ERBE data, and GCRs. Thus the evidence for a cosmic ray impact on cloudiness remains unproven.

A further consideration must be potential physical mechanisms whereby cosmic rays might enhance cloudiness. Cosmic rays are the principal source of ionisation in the free troposphere. Furthermore, ionisation rates and atmospheric conductivity are observed to vary with solar activity. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) propose that the correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover that they observed is due to an increase in efficiency of charged particles, over uncharged ones, in acting as cloud condensation nuclei. There is evidence for this occurring in thunderstorms (Pruppacher and Klett, 1997) but it is not clear to what extent this affects cloud development. There is also evidence that ions are sometimes critical in gas-to-particle conversion but again there is no evidence that this has any impact on cloud formation.

In a series of papers, Brian Tinsley has developed a more detailed mechanism for a link between cosmic rays and cloudiness (e.g., Tinsley, 1996). This is based on the premise that aerosols ionised by cosmic rays are more effective as ice nuclei and cause freezing of supercooled water in clouds. In clouds that are likely to cause precipitation the latent heat thus released then causes enhanced convection which promotes cyclonic development and hence increased storminess. There is some laboratory evidence to suggest that charging increases ice nucleation efficiency (Pruppacher, 1973) although there is no observational evidence of this process taking place in the atmosphere. Furthermore, only a small proportion of aerosol particles are capable of acting as ice nuclei, depending on chemical composition or shape. There are also laboratory studies (Abbas and Latham, 1969) which indicate the existence of electrofreezing, but again no evidence in the real atmosphere. Thus Tinsleys mechanism is plausible but requires further observational and modelling studies to establish whether or not it could be of sufficient magnitude to result in the claimed effects (Harrison and Shine, 1999).

We conclude that mechanisms for the amplification of solar forcing are not well established. Variations in ultraviolet and solar-induced changes in O3 may have a small effect on radiative forcing but additionally may affect climate through changing the distribution of solar heating and thus indirectly through a dynamical response. At present there is insufficient evidence to confirm that cloud cover responds to solar variability.

II. INDIEN ER TOCH EEN EFFECT ZOU ZIJN, HOE GROOT IS HET DAN ?

Uit deel I. bleek dus dat het effect nog in vraag gesteld wordt. Maar zelfs als er een effect is, dan blijft de vraag en de discussie over de grootte en het belang van het effect:

Het IPCC heeft de verschillende (gekende) invloeden in kaart gebracht (laatste versie in 2001), zodat we ze kunnen vergelijken, en ook kunnen beoordelen wat de rol is van de mens in de wereldwijde opwarming. Dit kan je het beste zien op de figuur in deze link : Global and annual mean radiative forcing (IPCC 2001).

(Opmerking: de diverse invloeden worden vergeleken aan de hand van hun "radiative forcing", en dat is niets anders dan de verstoring van de warmtebalans van onze planeet, uitgedrukt in Watt per vierkante meter, en voor de beschouwde periode (hier van 1750 tot 2000).

Op deze figuur is te zien dat de broeikasgassen, voor de periode tussen 1750 en 2000, samen verantwoordelijk waren voor een globale en gemiddelde opwarming van (ongeveer) 2.5 Watt per vierkante meter. Van deze broeikasgassen is CO2 het belangrijkste broeikasgas, want CO2 alleen was verantwoordelijk voor ongeveer 1.5 Watt per vierkante meter. (Methaan (CH4) is wel een erger broeikasgas, maar daarvan werd minder geloosd, zodat het globaal effect van methaan kleiner was!)

Uit vroegere documenten van en over Henrik Svensmark en Paal Brekke, herinner ik me dat men sprak over een invloed die, volgens Brekke, voor de periode van 1750 tot 2000, gelijk zou geweest zijn aan 1.5 watt/m². Dat is vrij veel, want dat is, voor die periode, gelijk aan de invloed van CO² alleen. Maar ik vind dat dit dan toch ook, net zoals geëist wordt voor de andere invloeden, eerst goed moet gedocumenteerd en bewezen worden! (Zie ook de kritiek vanwege het IPCC in deel I.! ). Ik wil er dus wel op wijzen dat dit nog niet bewezen is voor (en nog niet aanvaard werd door) het IPCC, die, wat mij betreft, toch de overkoepelende top zijn van al het wetenschappelijke onderzoek in dit domein. (Het IPCC werd opgericht door de VN en de WMO, en talrijke toponderzoekers en instellingen werken mee aan de verslagen).

Maar zelfs als dit het geval is, en indien dit effect werkelijk zo groot is als Paal Brekke beweert, hetgeen, ik benadruk dit, nog verder moet geverifieerd worden, dan doet dit niets af van het effect van de broeikasgassen (die blijven 2.5 Watt per vierkante meter leveren, waarvan CO2 alleen al zo'n 1.5 Watt per vierkante meter voor z'n rekening neemt).

En verder wil er ook op wijzen dat, ook volgens het eenvoudige klimaatmodel van Paal Brekke zelf (opgelet: vroeger werkte deze link, maar nu is er klaarblijkelijk een time-out, zodat je het model maar even te zien krijgt. Ik kan daar weinig aan veranderen, want het is de enige link die ik heb), de broeikasgassen nodig zijn, om de modellen (voor de periode tsn. 1750 en 2000) te laten kloppen met het werkelijk verloop van de temperatuur (IPCC). Dus zelfs Paal Brekke, met zijn theorie over de indirecte invloed van de zon, erkent dit, want ook zijn klimaatmodel, klopt maar met de werkelijkheid, als je ook rekening houdt met de broeikasgassen. En dit eenvoudige klimaatmodel van Paal Brekke lijkt ruwweg wel te kloppen met het werkelijk verloop van de temperatuur (IPCC), maar hou er wel rekening mee dat deze statistische correlatie nog géén bewijs is!!! (Zie ook deel I.: er zijn nog andere correlaties gevonden tussen de bewolkingsgraad en (onder andere) bijvoorbeeld El Niño)

Verder is de bewolkingsgraad ook afhankelijk van andere parameters, zoals bijvoorbeeld aërosolen t.g.v. vervuiling, stof, vulkanen... enz, enz. M.a.w., ook hier zal er een interactie zijn met andere parameters.

III. EXTRA INFORMATIE EN LINKEN

i) Cosmic rays and Earth's Cloud Cover (Henrik Svensmark)

ii) Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate (Henrik Svensmark)

iii) Recent presentations (Paal Brekke)

iv) SOHO

v) Kritiek van het IPCC: Cosmic rays and clouds (IPCC 2001)

Het is een verre weg naar de passieloze berg van het blote schouwen. Logos, Tao...

(Paul Van Ostaijen)

Edit 28/03/11 : Kleuren terug leesbaar gemaakt

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 28/03/11 15:17:29. Edited 2 times.

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

I.v.m. de kritiek op de hockeystick figuur van Mann

#1

[-]

Member

26/07/06 13:04:18

Administrator

Héél snel nog een vroeger antwoordje (i.v.m. de kritiek op de hockey stick figuur van Mann en een veronderstelde grotere (indirecte) invloed van de zon) toevoegen...

Sinds de kritiek op de fameuze 'hockey stick figuur' van Mann willen de negationisten van de menselijke invloed (op het klimaat) het publiek doen geloven dat de zon alle opwarming zou verklaren... En men verwijst daarbij steeds naar deze fameuze 'indirecte invloed' van de zon op het klimaat...

Wel, alhoewel ik momenteel niet meer de tijd heb om jullie te informeren over de laatste stand van zaken, wil ik wel wijzen op een aantal belangrijke studies die aantoonden dat deze indirecte invloed van de zon inderdaad groter was dan het IPCC in 2001 veronderstelde, maar dat de totale invloed van de zon (en dus ook deze 'indirecte invloed' van de zon) zeker niet alles verklaart:

HOW STRONGLY DOES THE SUN INFLUENCE CLIMATE? (Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, August 2, 2004):

Quote:
August 2, 2004

HOW STRONGLY DOES THE SUN INFLUENCE CLIMATE?

Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD. To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average. The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth's temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

Astronomers have regularly observed sunspots since the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century. These are areas on the surface of the Sun where energy flow from the interior is reduced due to the strong magnetic fields that they exhibit. As a result, these regions cool by about 1500° and thus appear relatively darker than their surroundings at 5800°. The number of sunspots varies over an 11-year activity period, which in turn is subject to longer term variations. For example, in the second half of the 17th century, there were hardly any sunspots at all.

The German-Finnish research team has now applied a new method to obtain insight into the development of the sunspot number from before the beginning of direct records. In addition, these experts have analyzed measured abundances of beryllium-10 in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. This radioactive isotope is created when energetic particles in cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere and split atomic nuclei of nitrogen and oxygen. Beryllium-10 (half-life 1.6 million years) is a product of this decay process, which is then washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation and then deposited in layers in the polar ice fields. Since the cosmic rays are partially deflected by the solar magnetic field filling interplanetary space, the production rate of Beryllium-10 in the atmosphere varies with the strength of this magnetic field, which in turn is associated with the number of sunspots.

A comparison of the Beryllium-10 data with the historical records of sunspot numbers reveals a high degree of correlation. Thus it was possible for the researchers to test and calibrate this new reconstruction method. The solar research team has managed, for the first time, to substantiate with consistent physical models every link in the complex chain, from the isotope abundance in the ice back to the sunspot number. This includes the creation of Beryllium-10 by cosmic rays, the modulation of the cosmic rays by the interplanetary magnetic field, and finally the relationship between the solar magnetic field and the number of sunspots. In this way it was possible for the scientists to obtain, for the first time, a reliable, quantitative determination of the sunspot numbers even for times before direct measurements were made.

These data show clearly that the Sun is in a state of unusually high activity, for about the last 60 years. The time interval for which this statement can be made has been tripled by these new investigations, for now the reconstructed sunspot numbers extend back to 850 AD. Another period of enhanced solar activity, but with substantially fewer sunspots than now, occurred in the Middle Ages from 1100 to 1250. At that time, a warm period reigned over the Earth, as the Vikings established flourishing settlements in Greenland.

The Sun affects the climate through several physical processes: For one thing, the total radiation, particularly that in the ultraviolet range, varies with solar activity. When many sunspots are visible, the Sun is somewhat brighter than in 'quiet' times and radiates considerably more in the ultraviolet. On the other hand, the cosmic ray intensity entering the Earth's atmosphere varies opposite to the solar activity, since the cosmic ray particles are deflected by the Sun's magnetic field to a greater or lesser degree. According to a much discussed model proposed by Danish researchers, the ions produced by cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei for larger suspension particles and thus contribute to cloud formation. With increased solar activity (and stronger magnetic fields), the cosmic ray intensity decreases, and with it the amount of cloud coverage, resulting in a rise of temperatures on the Earth. Conversely, a reduction in solar activity produces lower temperatures.

Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun's main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun's magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. 'Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,' says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
###

Contact:

Prof. Sami K. Solanki
Max-Plank Society
49-555-697-9325
solanki-office@mps.mpg.de

Dus ja, de invloed van de zon was groter dan het IPCC in 2001 toegaf, maar de zon verklaart niet alles, zeker niet de snelle opwarming gedurende de laatste 25 jaar...

En dan is er, bijvoorbeeld, ook nog deze studie:

SCRIPPS RESEARCHERS FIND CLEAR EVIDENCE OF HUMAN-PRODUCED WARMING IN WORLDS OCEANS (February 18, 2005)

En op basis van die gegevens, alsook op basis van vele andere zaken (zie ook mijn ander antwoord aan Daisycutter aka Papa Ratzi, waarbij ik aangetoond heb dat het IPCC aangetoond heeft dat de CO2 in de atmosfeer NIET afkomstig is uit de zeeën en de oceanen, maar afkomstig is van de uitstoot van broeikasgassen (t.g.v. menselijke activiteiten)), kwam ik al langer tot de conclusie dat de invloed van de zon mogelijk groter was dan het IPCC in 2001 toegaf, maar dat wil zeker niet zeggen dat de zon alles verklaart!

Integendeel, we zitten, hoedanook, met een belangrijke en nog steeds sterk toenemende component t.g.v. onze (nog steeds sterk toenemende) uitstoot van broeikasgassen, en deze component zal nog verder en sterk toenemen, zolang de uitstoot verder toeneemt!!!

Het is een verre weg naar de passieloze berg van het blote schouwen. Logos, Tao...

(Paul Van Ostaijen)

Edit 28/03/11 : Kleuren terug leesbaar gemaakt

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 28/03/11 15:18:56. Edited 2 times.

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

Een 'lijkje' dat nog uit de IPCC kast zou kunnen vallen...

#2

[-]

Member

14/11/06 19:52:12

Administrator

Dit is voorlopig (en waarschijnlijk ook definitief) mijn laatste bericht op het recente DSO forum over de klimaatverandering

Edit 13/12/09: Vroegere upgrade ezboard naar yuku: sommige linkadressen waren veranderd. Nu aangepast.
__________________

Ik geef het hier integraal, maar wel met omzetting van de linken :

Quote:
Wat mij betreft zal er aan deze figuur (zie: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-9.htm ), die vooral ook een overzicht geeft van de relatieve belangrijkheid van de diverse invloeden (bij de HUIDIGE klimaatverandering), niet veel meer veranderen, maar op één punt kan er, mijns inziens, nog een lijkje uit de IPCC kast vallen, en dat is, inderdaad, een grotere 'indirecte' invloed van de zon

En daarvoor verwijs ik naar deze linken:

Over de 'directe' invloed van de zon

Over de 'indirecte' invloed van de zon

De zon verklaart niet alles, get used to it de 'directe' invloed van de zon

En hier ook nog een 'intuïtieve' redenering

En als dat lijkje uit de kast valt, dan zal er héél veel lawaai zijn, nog véél méér dan over de 'hockey stick', jarenlang zal iedereen die het ipcc standpunt blijft verkondigen verketterd worden, tot blijkt dat deze 'indirecte' invloed van de zon (= het moduleren van de kosmische straling door de veranderlijke en cyclische magnetische activiteit van de zon ) toch niet zo groot was als door de 'klimaatsceptici' gehoopt, en dit terwijl de menselijke invloed, samen met de massale uitstoot van broeikasgassen, maar blijft toenemen...

P.S. De massale uitstoot van CO2, en de torenhoge concentratie ervan in de atmosfeer, heeft ook al andere nare gevolgen: de oceanen worden zuurder...

Tot zover, want ik kan deze vermoeiende en hopeloze discussie momenteel niet meer combineren met mijn huidige activiteiten...

Het is een verre weg naar de passieloze berg van het blote schouwen. Logos, Tao...

(Paul Van Ostaijen)

Edit 28/03/11 : Kleuren terug leesbaar gemaakt

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 28/03/11 15:20:27. Edited 2 times.

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

'The Chilling Stars' van Henrik Svensmark

#3

[-]

Member

06/12/07 09:20:16

Administrator

Dit is het lijkje dat nog uit de kast moest vallen:

En ik ben benieuwd hoe de wetenschappelijke wereld hierop zal reageren. Alweer zal het IPCC en iedereen die gelooft in de sterke menselijke invloed op het klimaat sterk onder vuur liggen. Maar ik weet wel beter, want Svensmark heeft maar een deel van het gelijk, en het versterkt broeikaseffect (door de extra broeikasgassen) is ook zichtbaar in zijn metingen:

Discussie, zie:

i) Mike Lockwood & Claus Fröhlich. "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature". Proceedings of the Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880.

ii) http://www.spacecenter.dk...es/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

En mijn reactie op deze laatste tekst:

Maar Henrik toch, ik heb jouw laatste document gelezen, en je zegt het zelf:

Quote:
FIG. 2: The solar cycle and the negative correlation of global mean tropospheric temperatures with galactic cosmic rays are apparent in this ESA-ISAC analysis (ref. [2]). The upper panel shows observations of temperatures (blue) and cosmic rays (red). The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nin ̃, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade). (DDC: dus met zijn gegevens, die ik niet geverifieerd heb, is er, naast de invloed van de kosmische straling en de modulatie daarvan door de magnetische activiteit van de zon, dus OOK NOG een lineaire trend, ten belope van 1.4 °C per 100 jaar, en dat is misschien niet zo pessimistisch als de slechtste scenario's van het IPCC, maar toch ziet hij, met zijn gegevens, OOK een extra lineaire trend (tengevolge van extra broeikasgassen)!!!)

En wat is die 'linear trend' anders dan het effect van de extra broeikasgassen? Zelfs met jouw gegevens, die ik niet geverifieerd heb, - misschien overdrijf je dus wel over deze invloed van de kosmische straling en de invloed van de modulatie daarvan door de veranderlijke magnetische activiteit van de zon (= de 'indirecte' invloed van de zon), - komen we ook tot de conclusie dat er weldegelijk een extra broeikaseffect is! En bovendien zal deze lineaire trend, die overeenkomt met het effect van de extra broeikasgassen, sterker toenemen als de concentratie van de extra broeikasgassen in de atmosfeer verder toeneemt! Jouw eigen tekst is dus niet alleen een bewijs voor jouw stelling, waarmee ik overigens altijd akkoord ging (zie hogere berichten), maar het is bovendien ook een bewijs voor het (nog steeds toenemend (*)) effect van de extra broeikasgassen!

Echt eens benieuwd hoe men hier weer op gaat reageren en hoeveel lawaai er weer zal zijn, maar ik weet beter hoor...

29/12/07: Dit onderzoek van Henrik Svensmark kan, als spin-off, wel als resultaat hebben dat onze weersvoorspellingen op langere termijn iets nauwkeuriger worden, maar de klimaatsceptici moeten zich géén illusies maken: in tegenstelling met sommige uitspraken van Nigel Calder in het boek, ondergraaft dit onderzoek het feit van de menselijke invloed niet! Wie de gegevens kritisch onder de loupe neemt, die ziet zelfs een bevestiging voor het effect van de extra broeikasgassen! (En in tegenstelling met mijn opvattingen en huidige mening over kernenergie, heb ik, op dit vlak, géén enkele twijfel meer!)
______________
(*) Als de concentratie van de extra boeikasgassen (in de atmosfeer) verder toeneemt (en dat is wat momenteel nog altijd sterk gebeurt), zal deze lineaire trend een grotere hellingshoek krijgen, en dus belangrijker worden!

Het is maar goed, als het goed is, voor iedereen!

Edit 28/03/11 : Kleuren terug leesbaar gemaakt

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 28/03/11 15:22:02. Edited 1 time.

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

Re: 'The Chilling Stars' van Henrik Svensmark

#4

[-]

Member

16/12/07 19:45:08

Administrator

Remove this ad

Voor wie mijn antwoorden onvoldoende of niet gezaghebbend genoeg zou vinden:

www.realclimate.org/

En neem daar de index:

Index RealClimate.org

( Voor wie mijn persoonlijke antwoorden, - die altijd gebaseerd waren op mijn eigen begrip en inzicht over deze zaak, - onvoldoende of niet gezaghebbend genoeg vond: je kan hier vele gedetailleerde antwoorden (inclusief discussies met sceptici!) vinden op vragen die de zogenaamde 'klimaatsceptici' herhaaldelijk stelden! )

En wat de invloed van de zon (zowel de directe als de indirecte invloed) betreft, vind je hier hun standpunten:

Solar Forcing

En, op het eerste zicht heb ik toch de indruk dat ze mijn stellingen bevestigen!

Het is maar goed, als het goed is, voor iedereen!

Edit 28/03/11 : Kleuren terug leesbaar gemaakt

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 28/03/11 15:23:10. Edited 1 time.

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

Documentaire: The cloud mystery (Canvas 13 november 2008)

#5

[-]

Member

14/11/08 21:04:23

Administrator

Documentaire: The cloud mystery (Canvas 13 november 2008)

Hier is mijn antwoord dat ik gepost heb op de website van Canvas, en dit naar aanleiding van de documentaire 'The Cloud Mystery', over het werk van Henrik Svensmark:

Tweede (en ondertussen ook al derde) poging om hier een bericht te posten (deze keer met een andere formulering):

Och, Henrik Svensmark heeft maar een deel van het gelijk, maar zeker niet 'het grote gelijk'.

Jaren geleden heb ik er al over gediscussieerd, op diverse fora, en hier kun je daarvan nog enkele berichten terugvinden:

http://progressiefforum.y...d-van-de-zon-klimaat.html

alsook hier (aanverwant):

http://progressiefforum.y...alles-get-used-to-it.html

http://progressiefforum.y...d-van-de-zon-klimaat.html

En voor nog meer info over de huidige klimaatverandering:

http://progressiefforum.y...m/forums/7/t/Klimaat.html

http://progressiefforum.y...s/7/t/Klimaat.html?page=2

http://progressiefforum.y...s/7/t/Klimaat.html?page=3

Het kan trouwens niet dat ijstijden en interglacialen alleen maar zouden verklaard worden door de variërende kosmische straling, want Millutin Milankovitch heeft, jaren geleden, reeds een groot deel van de ijstijden verklaard, en dit op basis van geleidelijke veranderingen van de baanparameters van de Aarde:

http://progressiefforum.y...Milankovitch-klimaat.html

Interglacialen zijn doorgaans zeer korte perioden, van slechts enkele tienduizenden jaren, en dit terwijl de ijstijden vaak veel langer duren! Zijn de 4 armen van de melkweg dan zo breed, en de tussenruimten zo smal, zodat het verschil in duur tussen de ijstijden en interglacialen verklaard wordt? Nee toch! De theorie van Svensmark kan dus hoogstens (en voorlopig slechts als hypothese) een extra verklaring zijn, voor het voorkomen van de ijstijden die niet door Milankovitch kunnen voorspeld worden, maar het merendeel van de ijstijden en interglacialen werden wél al door Milankovitch voorspeld, en dit zonder rekening te houden met de kosmische straling! (Milankovitch verklaart de meeste ijstijden en interglacialen als een gevolg van geleidelijke veranderingen van de baanparameters van de Aarde).

Dat is dus al één punt van kritiek. Vergeet vooral niet dat elke onderzoeker sterk de neiging heeft om de invloed die hij/zij bestudeert op te hemelen tot de factor die alles verklaart, maar wie een beetje ervaring heeft in dit domein, die weet dat dit niet klopt. Individuele wetenschappers kijken vaak erg autistisch naar de invloed die zij bestuderen, maar vergeten soms het grotere geheel. Svensmark had dus moeten weten en moeten zeggen dat Milankovitch het merendeel van de ijstijden en interglacialen verklaart, en sorry, maar die deed dat zonder kosmische straling in rekening te brengen...

En dan is er nog de wolkenvorming, die ook beïnvloedt wordt door andere parameters, zoals, bijvoorbeeld, de aanwezigheid van aërosolen t.g.v. van luchtvervuiling. (denk, bijvoorbeeld, aan roet en sulfaten) Méér luchtvervuiling wil ook zeggen méér condensatiekernen en dus méér wolken hé, dus door alleen maar naar de kosmische straling te kijken kom j'er ook niet. En dan heb ik het nog niet eens over natuurlijke aërosolen waaronder natuurlijke sulfaten!

Maar dit neemt niet weg dat Svensmark wél een deel(tje) van het gelijk kan hebben, en toegegeven, het IPCC mag dat, inderdaad, niet onder de mat vegen, en dat schreef ik vroeger ook al.

Maar wat jullie ook nog bedenken, je moet die 8 miljard ton koolstof, die we jaarlijks verbranden en als CO2 in de atmosfeer stuwen ook niet onderschatten hé! Momenteel wordt slechts de helft daarvan terug opgenomen door de biosfeer, en de meeste studies geven aan dat dit in de toekomst niet veel zal verbeteren, immers, als we niet verder doen met de massale ontbossing, dan zal er op het land inderdaad wat meer CO2 opgenomen kunnen worden, maar de oceanen zullen geleidelijk minder opnemen, en daarom is er veel twijfel of we, gedurende de eerstvolgende paar honderd jaar, wel meer CO2 zullen opnemen:

http://progressiefforum.y...name-van-CO2-klimaat.html

(En vergeet daarbij niet de extra uitstoot t.g.v. het ontdooien van de permafrost!)

En de zeer hoge CO2 concentraties die we nu al hebben, geven bovendien ook aanleiding tot verzuring van de oceanen! :

http://progressiefforum.y...ies-hoe-lang-geleden.html

En 's nachts houdt het wolkendek de Aarde lekker warm, dus Svensmark moet nu ook niet gaan overdrijven met de afkoelende werking van zijn extra wolken hé ...;-)

Wat mij betreft mogen jullie lekker verder speculeren, maar het grote gelijk hebben jullie ook niet, zeker weten! Een paar jaar geleden heb ik, in de gegevens van Svensmark, trouwens gezien dat zijn kosmische straling niet alles verklaart, want naast de invloed van zijn kosmische straling, was er ook nog een lineair stijgende trend, en toch spijtig dat hij niet de eerlijkheid had om erbij te vertellen dat dit nou net de invloed van de extra broeikasgassen was. En vergeet daarbij niet dat de hellingshoek (en dus ook het belang) van deze lineaire invloed toeneemt, als de extra concentratie van de broeikasgassen in de atmosfeer toeneemt...

Meer info? Wel, dat heb ik destijds hier opgemerkt:

http://progressiefforum.y...d-van-de-zon-klimaat.html

Enz, enz, ... Ik laat jullie maar, want we zijn weer bezig... ;-)

Het is maar goed, als het goed is, voor iedereen!

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 18/11/08 03:09:39. Edited 4 times.

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

The Cloud Mystery, vervolg:

#6

[-]

Member

18/11/08 02:52:14

Administrator

Goed zo, want andere mensen, zoals dhr. Goossens en dhr. Oeyen, hebben interessante linken gegeven, die mijn vroegere standpunten en reacties bevestigen:

Eerst een zeer sterk artikel van George Monbiot:

Channel 4's Problem with Science
Posted March 13, 2007

It doesn't give a damn about whether the facts stack up - as long as it creates a controversy.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 13th March 2007.

Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the Dark Ages. All the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved to be tomorrow's visionary.

But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed that AIDS can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will one day be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo(1).

The problem with "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the British government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands of people have been misled into believing that there is no problem to address.

The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots - the shorter they are, the higher the temperature(2).

Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data"(3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made - in this case in their arithmetic(5).

So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).

So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover"( 8 ). This too turned out to be incorrect(9). Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).

As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work", Schmidt says, "but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we've seen."(12) None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.

The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine(13,14,15).

Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."(16)

Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went quietly back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some of them, like the film makers, shriek "censorship!" This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have ever come across. If you demonstrate that someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.

But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Professor Wunsch says that he was "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" by the people who made it(17).

This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director, Martin Durkin. In 1998 the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing"(18). Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.

Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already outdated and discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.

But for the people who commissioned this film, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited - like Martin Durkin and a certain nutritionist of our acquaintance. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. David Bellamy, 14th August 2004. An ill wind blows for turbines. Letter to the Guardian.

2. Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, 1991. Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science, Vol 254, 698-700.

3. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, 2004. Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data. Eos, Vol. 85, No. 39.

4. Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 2000. Reply to "Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited" by P. Laut and J.Gundermann. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 105, No 27, 493-495.

5. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

6. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 1997. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: A missing link in solar-climate relationships. The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 59, 1225-1232.

7. Peter Laut, 2003. Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol 65, 801-812.

8. Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, 2000. Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. Physical Review Letters Vol 85, no 23. 5004-5007.

9. Paul Damon and Peter Laut, ibid.

10. Henrik Svensmark et al, 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society Volume 463, Number 2078, 1364-5021.

11. Danish National Space centre, October 2006. Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate.

http://spacecenter.dk/pub...mic-connection-to-climate

12. Gavin Schmidt, 16th October 2006. Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin. http://www.realclimate.or...g-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

13. Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, 2nd September 2005. The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.

14. B.D. Santer et al, 2nd September 2005. Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.

15. Steven J. Sherwood, John R. Lanzante and Cathryn L. Meyer, 2nd September 2005. Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming. Science. Vol 309, pp1556-1559.

16. Tom Wigley et al, April 2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences: Executive Summary. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

http://www.climatescience.../sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

17. Geoffrey Lean, 11th March 2007. An inconvenient truth… for C4. Independent on Sunday.

18. Independent Television Commission, 1st April 1998. Channel 4 to apologise to four interviewees in "Against Nature" series. Press release.

It's cosmic rays

The skeptic argument...

Fig1 When solar activity is high, galactic cosmic rays are reduced due to increased magnetic shielding by the Sun. Cosmic rays may influence Earth's climate through formation of low lying clouds.
They ionize the atmosphere and an experiment found production of aerosols depends on the amount of ionization. As aerosols are precursors for formation of cloud droplets, this indicates cosmic rays may influence cloud formation. (Source: Danish National Space Center).

What the science says...

While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.

The fatal flaw in the theory that cosmic rays (or lack thereof) are driving global warming is that cosmic radiation has shown no correlation with global temperatures since 1970.

This led the Max Planck Institute (Krivova 2003) to conclude that "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase."

Similarly, Lockwood 2007 compared neutron monitor measurements, Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotopes (both proxies for cosmic radiation) as well as several other measures of solar activity and concluded "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

Other difficulties with cosmic ray theory

There are other problems proving the causality link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. This is not to disprove the theory but just to show there are enough question marks to show some healthy skepticism about cosmic ray theory.

Breakdown in the correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays
One of the key proofs of Svensmark's cosmic ray theory is the high correlation between low cloud cover and cosmic rays. However, the correlation broke down in 1991 (Laut 2003). At that point, cloud cover began to lags cosmic ray trends by over 6 months while cloud formation should occur within several days (Yu 2000). The correlation completely breaks down in 1994.

Graph courtesy of Laut 2003. Low cloud cover (blue line) versus cosmic ray intensity (red line)

Svensmark explained the 6 month lag as data uncertainty (Svensmark 2003). He also claims the loss of correlation after 1994 is due to long term calibration drift with the ISCCP satellites (Marsh & Svensmark 2001). The ISCCP disagree.

Critique by Sloan and Wolfendale
A recent paper (Sloan 2007) scrutinizes the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover and finds several discrepancies. As cosmic radiation shows greater variation in high latitudes, one would expect larger changes in cloud cover in polar regions. This is not observed. Examining the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl, ionization from the radioactivity would be expected to produce an increase in cloud cover. There is no evident increase in cloud cover following the accident.

The bottom line is even if these difficulties can be resolved and the causality link between cosmic rays and cloud formation is proven, all they'll find is the cloud formation 50 years ago is similar to now and has had little to no impact on the last 30 years of long term global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one.

According to Terry Sloan, the message coming from his research is simple.

"We tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right.

"So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Het is maar goed, als het goed is, voor iedereen!

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

Standpunt IPCC-2007 (4th assesement report)

#7

[-]

Member

19/11/08 20:15:40

Administrator

In het IPCC-rapport van 2007 wordt het aldus vermeld:

Bemerk wel dat hier zowel de rol van UV als de rol van de door de magnetische activiteit van de zon gemoduleerde galactische kosmische straling wordt behandeld:

2.7.1.3 Indirect Effects of Solar Variability

Approximately 1% of the Sun's radiant energy is in the UV
portion of the spectrum at wavelengths below about 300 nm,
which the Earth's atmosphere absorbs. Although of considerably
smaller absolute energy than the total irradiance, solar UV
radiation is fractionally more variable by at least an order of
magnitude. It contributes significantly to changes in total solar
irradiance (15% of the total irradiance cycle; Lean et al., 1997)
and creates and modifies the ozone layer, but is not considered
as a direct RF because it does not reach the troposphere.
Since the TAR, new studies have confirmed and advanced the
plausibility of indirect effects involving the modification of the
stratosphere by solar UV irradiance variations (and possibly by
solar-induced variations in the overlying mesosphere and lower
thermosphere), with subsequent dynamical and radiative coupling
to the troposphere (Section 9.2).

Whether solar wind fluctuations
(Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric
modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark,
2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous.

As in the troposphere, anthropogenic effects, internal cycles
(e.g., the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation) and natural influences
all affect the stratosphere. It is now well established from
both empirical and model studies that solar cycle changes in
UV radiation alter middle atmospheric ozone concentrations
(Fioletov et al., 2002; Geller and Smyshlyaev, 2002; Hood,
2003), temperatures and winds (Ramaswamy et al., 2001;
Labitzke et al., 2002; Haigh, 2003; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks
and Gray, 2005), including the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation
(McCormack, 2003; Salby and Callaghan, 2004). In their recent
survey of solar influences on climate, Gray et al. (2005) noted
that updated observational analyses have confirmed earlier 11-
year cycle signals in zonally averaged stratospheric temperature
ozone and circulation with increased statistical confidence.
There is a solar-cycle induced increase in global total ozone of
2 to 3% at solar cycle maximum, accompanied by temperature
responses that increase with altitude, exceeding 1°C around 50
km. However, the amplitudes and geographical and altitudinal
patterns of these variations are only approximately known, and
are not linked in an easily discernible manner to the forcing.
For example, solar forcing appears to induce a significant
lower stratospheric response (Hood, 2003), which may have a
dynamical origin caused by changes in temperature affecting
planetary wave propagation, but it is not currently reproduced
by models.

When solar activity is high, the more complex magnetic
configuration of the heliosphere reduces the flux of galactic
cosmic rays in the Earth's atmosphere. Various scenarios have
been proposed whereby solar-induced galactic cosmic ray
fluctuations might influence climate (as surveyed by Gray et
al., 2005). Carslaw et al. (2002) suggested that since the plasma
produced by cosmic ray ionization in the troposphere is part of
an electric circuit that extends from the Earth's surface to the
ionosphere, cosmic rays may affect thunderstorm electrification.
By altering the population of CCN and hence microphysical
cloud properties (droplet number and concentration), cosmic
rays may also induce processes analogous to the indirect
effect of tropospheric aerosols. The presence of ions, such as
produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several
microphysical mechanisms (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003).
Aerosols may nucleate preferentially on atmospheric cluster ions.
In the case of low gas-phase sulphuric acid concentrations,
ion-induced nucleation may dominate over binary sulphuric
acid-water nucleation. In addition, increased ion nucleation
and increased scavenging rates of aerosols in turbulent regions
around clouds seem likely. Because of the difficulty in tracking
the influence of one particular modification brought about by
ions through the long chain of complex interacting processes,
quantitative estimates of galactic cosmic-ray induced changes
in aerosol and cloud formation have not been reached.
Many empirical associations have been reported between
globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray
fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b). Hypothesised
to result from changing ionization of the atmosphere from
solar-modulated cosmic ray fluxes, an empirical association
of cloud cover variations during 1984 to 1990 and the solar
cycle remains controversial because of uncertainties about the
reality of the decadal signal itself, the phasing or anti-phasing
with solar activity, and its separate dependence for low, middle
and high clouds. In particular, the cosmic ray time series
does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or
to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (Kristjánsson and
Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven
de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation
is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared
(not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997)
time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a
relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a
small but statistically significant positive correlation between
cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to
2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover
anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal
at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray
flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001). Because the mechanisms are
uncertain, the apparent relationship between solar variability
and cloud cover has been interpreted to result not only from
changing cosmic ray fluxes modulated by solar activity in the
heliosphere (Usoskin et al., 2004) and solar-induced changes in
ozone (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001), but also from sea surface
temperatures altered directly by changing total solar irradiance
(Kristjánsson et al., 2002) and by internal variability due to
the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Kernthaler et al., 1999). In
reality, different direct and indirect physical processes (such as
those described in Section 9.2) may operate simultaneously.
The direct RF due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced
from the TAR. The best estimate is +0.12 W m-2 (90%
confidence interval: +0.06 to +0.30 W m-2). While there have
been advances in the direct solar irradiance variation, there
remain large uncertainties. The level of scientific understanding
is elevated to low relative to TAR for solar forcing due to direct
irradiance change, while declared as very low for cosmic ray
influences (Section 2.9, Table 2.11).

Het is maar goed, als het goed is, voor iedereen!

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 20/11/08 15:21:14. Edited 2 times.

Reply Quote

Daniel De Caluwe

A Question to Mr. Svensmark

#8

[-]

Member

12/07/10 12:44:04

Administrator

Remove this ad

To continue with this / or to go a little bit further into this:

A question to Mr. Svensmark from Ir. Daniel De Caluwé:

Referring to this document (attention, pdf-file!), I have following question:

Under fig.2 on page 3, you wrote:

FIG. 2: The solar cycle and the negative correlation of global
mean tropospheric temperatures with galactic cosmic rays are
apparent in this ESA-ISAC analysis (ref. [2]). The upper
panel shows observations of temperatures (blue) and cosmic
rays (red). The lower panel shows the match achieved by
removing El Ninõ, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic
aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade).

So, to achieve 'the match' (of your data with your hypothesis), you 'removed ... also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade = 1.4 °C in 100 years = approximately the present influence of the greenhouse gasses)', a linear trend that was present in your data, but that you removed to match your data with your hypothesis!

I do appreciate your work, and I can and also do understand that you're a little bit frustrated, Mr. Svensmark, but why don't you have the courage to say/admit to the scientific community and to the world-press, that 'the linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade = 1.4 °C in 100 years)', that you 'removed to match' your data with your hypothesis, is or could be the effect of greenhouse gasses (due to human activity)? Wouldn't that be a little bit more honest?

Kind Regards,

Ir. Daniel De Caluwé, Belgium

Edit 28/03/11 : Kleuren terug leesbaar gemaakt

Het is maar goed, als het goed is, voor iedereen!

Last Edited By: Daniel De Caluwe 28/03/11 15:25:43. Edited 1 time.

Reply Quote

Yuku free message boards

Over de 'indirecte' invloed van de zon (klimaat)

Over de 'indirecte' invloed van de zon (klimaat)

It's cosmic rays

It's cosmic rays

The skeptic argument...

What the science says...

Other difficulties with cosmic ray theory

Further reading