If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Experimental results support cosmic ray theory of climate
The cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al postulates that small changes in solar activity can have amplified effects upon the climate by influencing galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Scientists at CERN -the European Laboratory for Particle Physics have been studying this theory in the laboratory for the past several years, and according to Nigel Calder's blog (former chief editor of New Scientist), the experiment is showing that cosmic rays have a strong influence on aerosol (cloud) formation and that the results will soon be published. Indeed, the highly-recommended video below of a lecture last month by the director of the experiment, Jasper Kirby, has an example run from the experiment (the full results are embargoed until publication) showing large increases in cloud nucleation particles related to the intensity of artificial cosmic rays entering the experimental chamber. If the Svensmark et al theory is proven correct, the Sun may finally be vindicated as the dominating control knob of the climate, not man-made CO2.
Example run from the CLOUD experiment shows in the bottom graph the increase in cloud nucleation particles following introduction of low levels of artificial cosmic rays at time "1", moderate levels at "2", and high levels at time "3". Notations in red added. Slide from Dr. Kirby's lecture above.
The chief scientific advisor to the UK government has publicly stated that "we have not been able to prove that global warming is caused by natural phenomena therefore it must be carbon dioxide". How much more damning can that be for the AGW proponents.
But carbon dioxide IS a natural component of the earth. Without it our earth would be a dead planet.Besides, where did all the CO2 come from that allowed all the plants to grow during the Carbonaceous Epoch? The plants that were compressed into coal grew as a result of many times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we have today. By burning coal we're simply releasing the natural CO2 from that Epoch back into the atmosphere. What could be more natural?
The chief scientific advisor to the UK government has publicly stated that "we have not been able to prove that global warming is caused by natural phenomena therefore it must be carbon dioxide". How much more damning can that be for the AGW proponents.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/11/03/svensmark-om-clouds-senaste-experiment/
ReplyDeleteBut carbon dioxide IS a natural component of the earth. Without it our earth would be a dead planet.Besides, where did all the CO2 come from that allowed all the plants to grow during the Carbonaceous Epoch? The plants that were compressed into coal grew as a result of many times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we have today. By burning coal we're simply releasing the natural CO2 from that Epoch back into the atmosphere. What could be more natural?
ReplyDelete