<xnich...@hotmail.com> wrote

On 18 Jun, 21:32, "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@frankenexpress.de>
wrote:

<xnich...@hotmail.com> wrote

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder

Reviewed by Gavin Schmidt: June 2007
physicsweb (extract)

"The dramatic centre of the book is the description of a recent
experiment conducted by Svensmark and colleagues in which GCRs were
shown to create small aerosol particles in "surprising" numbers in the
lab. This is indeed interesting, and was rightly written up as a paper
and published (Proc. R. Soc. A 463 385-396). However, it is far from
the ultimate proof of their ideas that the authors claim. The
researchers did not show that GCRs could actually produce much larger
cloud condensation nuclei, even in the lab, nor how they would affect
clouds in the real world even if they did."
".....In reading the book, I was struck by some odd omissions. Nowhere
is it mentioned that the first set of correlations between total cloud
cover and GCRs published by Svensmark in 1997 disappeared in the light
of new data.

That was 1997.
Meanwhile they have published some more relevant papers
about CRF and LACC.
This book is antiquated.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The problem you have though, is that there is no observed correlation
between Cosmic ray intensity and global temperatures in the
obervational record.
According to the theory, cosmic rays anti-correlate with temperature
on earth. In fact they have been increasing recently, yet
temperatures have not fallen in step.
There's a graph here that you might care to explain:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg

Stay away with realclimate.crap

The explain is simply and easy.
The open solar flux has doubled since 1900.
We are now in a relative quiet phase of the sun, just at
the beginning of a new solar cycle.
In consequence of this, sun's magnetic field is declined.
This however inclined CR flux, affecting LACC and therefore
cooling.

That's what we have now at the moment.
Wait for the peak of the solar cycle 24 in 2011 and you will see a
little temperature rising again, with beginning decline at 70% of
the falling flank about 2014-15 or so.
There is nothing magic and it happens without realclimate.crap

After that cycle, the earth comes to a quiet solar phase and will cool
down to 2050 or so.
That's because the actual cycle 24 is relative intense and having
the Gleissberg cycle maximum and a BFT zero-phase at the
same time.
After that we would have cooling for about 1/2 of Gleissberg cycle,
approx. 50 years or so.
That's all not supernatural and you don't need any GCM for that.

"Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1182192648.574884.28800@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 18, 1:35 pm, "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote:

<xnich...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1182191288.837128.235040@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder

Reviewed by Gavin Schmidt: June 2007
physicsweb (extract)

"The dramatic centre of the book is the description of a recent
experiment conducted by Svensmark and colleagues in which GCRs were
shown to create small aerosol particles in "surprising" numbers in the
lab. This is indeed interesting, and was rightly written up as a paper
and published (Proc. R. Soc. A 463 385-396). However, it is far from
the ultimate proof of their ideas that the authors claim. The
researchers did not show that GCRs could actually produce much larger
cloud condensation nuclei, even in the lab, nor how they would affect
clouds in the real world even if they did."
".....In reading the book, I was struck by some odd omissions. Nowhere
is it mentioned that the first set of correlations between total cloud
cover and GCRs published by Svensmark in 1997 disappeared in the light
of new data. His second set of correlations, this time only with low
cloud cover, are shown, but the fact that those correlations also
broke down as the dataset was extended does not get a mention either.
Nowhere is there a graph showing cosmic-ray fluctuations in recent
decades. In fact, measurements show no significant trends and, since
that undermines the authors' claim that a reduction in GCRs is
responsible for the current global warming, it is rather disingenuous
to omit this information."

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute

full article:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/6/8/1

The cosmic ray hoax has been pretty well debunked. They just don't do
enough.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good god, everything has been debunked

Nope, just everything you denialists post.

except for the infallible IPCC

and their fraudulent CO2 theory.

It's not their theory. Why do you lie? (Because you know you're wrong.)- Hide quoted text -

"Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote

Yawn . . .
We've already debunked cosmic ray mythology several times here.
For those who may have missed it, below is one of several good
debunking this spaced out theory got.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Cosmic Ray Theory of Global Warming Fails A Basic Test!

Members of this newsgroup working for the Carbon fuel industry
keep looking for some another cause for global warming other
than waste CO2 from their master's products. Lately they've
touted the theory that cosmic rays, not the CO2 from the
burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, are the cause of the
recent global warming.

For the cosmic-ray/global-warming link to be correct,
rising values of cosmic rays should bring rising temperatures
and falling cosmic rays fluxes should bring falling
temperatures. Correlation detects the reverse relationship
too. This is a necessary, but not a sufficient
condition for the link to be correct. A significant
correlation is not a proof of a causal link, but an
insignificant correlation is a certain disproof of a link.

A correlation is a statistical test on two variables that
produces a value called R. R is between -1 and 1, with
the negative numbers representing reverse relationships.
The square of R, a fraction between 0 and 1, indicates
how much the two variables follow each others ups and downs.
A value of 0 indicates that the variables are unrelated,
while a 1 shows that they are so strongly related that
they may be the same variable.

Please see:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html
Item 20 shows R squared for several graphed relationships.

The R squared value for a correlation between the cosmic
rays measured at Climax Colorado and the NASA GISS global
mean land and sea surface temperature is barely 5%. <-- !!
This low value virtually eliminates cosmic rays as a
cause of surface temperature change.

The equivalent R squared value for Mauna Loa CO2 is 77%,
which indicates that there may be a strong CO2 temperature
link. It does not prove the link, however. For proof one
needs a mechanism, like the one established by Fourier,
Tyndall, and Arrhenius in the 19th century.

Roger, you're as dumb as a pound of salt.

Your "who the ***** is wolfram" has no clue what he was
writing there.

The correlation *can* have positive or negative effect.
But it has nothing to do with pure CR. It has to do with the clouds,
that were generated by CR.
BUT EFFECT DEPENDS ON WHITCH ALTITUDE CLOUDS APPEAR!

High clouds (i.e. Cirrus) can have a heating effect, and low clouds
(Cumulus) have a cooling effect, depending on the speed of the neutrons.
That's all, Roger.
CR without clouds are nothing, nil, nada.
The effect appears in the first place in presence of water vapor
and aerosols for cloud condensation (mostly sulfuric components).
CR are not an effect, they are the cause for clouds.

Dig it now?