EnviroLink Forum

It is not for certain as to whether the precipitation changes are caused by the GCR change, but as they also state in the conclusions...

Our results are broadly
consistent with this theory. As such, the strong similarity in the relationship of P and PE with
CRF is notable.

Which is why it was noted here, and should not be dismissed easily, as you are doing. Simply, that uncertainty monster is coming back again.

That is why the science is not settled.

The uncertainty monster still remains huge.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

The uncertainty in this case is whether there is ANY causation from one to the other. That is a huge uncertainty you wish to ignore.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No it does no such thing. It mentions the associated research in passing with NO implication of which may or may not be more significant because they are not dealing with that in the paper.



Good, as misrepresentation is unbecoming you.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I didn't say this means there was a causation, just that they're highly correlated to one another, which should be taken note. The authors do note that this is consistent with the GCR-Cloud theory, but are cautious with their results.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

The lack of causation removes the uncertainty you try to promote.



As they should be. The problem I have is those, like yourself, who jump on something like this as if it is solid evidence even when the scientists producing the paper do not.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Huh?

Because the authors say that the causation is not definite means that there is no effect from GCRs, and that means that there is no uncerainty?





It is definitely possible evidence, and the authors do say it supports the theory, and they are simply cautious with their results.

The problem I have is that you try and make it look like as if this means that GCRs have no effect, when they most certainly can, it is just uncertain as to if this is a causation or not.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Yes, no uncertainty concerning the current theory as there is sufficient uncertainty with your preferred hypothesis to disregard it as being significant.



It is possible evidence, but to refute a theory you need real evidence.



they may have an effect, but based on current evidence, not a significant effect.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

If there is uncertainty with the GCR hypothesis, naturally there will be uncertainty with the CO2 hypothesis, since there would be an unknown amount of warming that GCRs have caused over the last 100 years.

So using your logic, we can discount the CO2 theory is not being significant, since there are uncertainties that surround it as well.



To even suggest a theory, there needs to be some evidence, but this is not present with the CO2 theory.



Jusitifcation for this claim?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Not necessarily, as until there is some evidence of an effect there is no connection to add uncertainty.



No, the uncertainties in your preferred hypothesis start with the lack of evidence for a mechanism, which is not the case with GHG.



Actually, there is. The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere coupled with the evidence of how GHGs work gives a theory supported by measurements .... unlike the cosmic ray mechanisms.



The results of the CERN experiments which showed an insufficient level of nucliation for observed climate impact even with the multiplication factors included.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10343.html

.Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Note the trend from 1950 onward.



Then compare the cosmic ray cycle for a similar trend.

http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonito ... tron2.html

See one?

The authors of this paper had a similar problem.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publika ... ki/r47.pdf

Note that between 1979 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux. although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of the rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I'm reposting a post I just made on my blog to this post.

There have been a few myths propagated on the "mainstream" side of the climate debate. One of these myths is that since there has been no trend in Cosmic Rays over the last 50 years, they can not be causing warming. This is not true at all.



The figure above compares the number of sunspots in green, to the Cosmic Ray Intensity (CRI) in blue.




The figure above shows the yearly global temperatures over the last 140 years, and the error bars for these yearly global temperatures. Comparing the Cosmic Ray Intensity to this graph, a slight increase in the minima of the Cosmic Ray Intensity from 1955-1970 corresponds well to a flatline in temperatures from 1940-1975.

The CRI then plummeted to a record low in 1992, which corresponds to a temperature increase during this period. Also note that towards the end, the temperatures have recently flatlined, as cosmic ray intensities have gone up slightly.




This figure from Dorman 2012 above combines the global temperature anomalies to the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) from 1937-1994. There is a very good correspondance between the two variables, suggesting that Cosmic Rays (modulated by solar activity) play a large and dominant role in current climate change.

Not sure how Krivova and Solanki get an increase in the GCR counts in the 1990s, when GCRs reached a record low in 1992.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Now look at this section from the full paper:

We find that ion induced
binary nucleation proceeds at a significant rate in the cool
temperatures of the free troposphere at atmospheric concentrations
of sulphuric acid, and may be an important process when ternary
vapour concentrations are low.

However, the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to
sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic
vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions
experimentally.

Because the primary source of ions in the global
troposphere is galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), their role in atmospheric
nucleation is of considerable interest as a possible physical mechanism
for climate variability caused by the Sun

That's a little bit different than what you are trying to portray, Wayne.

Note that the Boundary layer could be as low as a few meters from the surface, but it is largely dependent on the local meteorology. Low Clouds can be as high as 6,500-8,000 feet, so GCR induced ionization could play a prominent role in the formation of low clouds in the troposphere, as hypothesized by Svensmark.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

I'll be back to reply to the rest of your posts, Wayne.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

It it were the direct influence some suggest, why would the disconnect occur in the last 50 years?



The cosmic rays impacted the temperature 15 years in advance and for 5 years following? If one looks at the trend from 1950 for both sets of data, so there is no cherry-picking, the trend in temperature is not seen in the cosmic rays. Why would that be if there is such a strong influence on the temperature by cosmic rays and only cosmic rays?



Or could it be the other way around?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein