Archive for the ‘Clouds’ Category

More Evidence that the Sun, Not Man, Controls Earth’s TemperatureJuly 8th, 2009 by E. Calvin Beisner

In his book The Chilling Stars, Henrik Svensmark explains his theory that changes in solar magnetic wind output could control changes in cloud formation on Earth and thus control changes in Earth’s surface temperature. Here’s how it works: Earth is bathed in a current of cosmic rays coming from other stars in and beyond the Milky Way. When cosmic rays collide with certain molecules in our atmosphere, they break those apart and form new compounds, some of which, electrically charged, are excellent nuclei for condensation of water vapor–that is, for the formation of clouds. Clouds, in turn, have a net cooling effect on the Earth by reflecting solar energy back into space before it reaches the surface.

The cosmic ray current isn’t steady. It varies. The stronger it is, the more clouds form, cooling the Earth–and vice versa. But what causes cosmic ray current to vary? Svensmark has shown very strong correlation between it and the strength of solar magnetic wind–the two vary in tandem, and the solar wind, in turn, varies in tandem with solar energy output. Many scientists, including those working with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, long thought the variation in solar energy output (about 0.1%) was simply too slight to explain late twentieth-century global warming, but they were considering only the energy flux. If Svensmark is right, then solar energy flux is magnified by solar wind flux’s effect on cosmic rays and, through them, on cloud formation.

Svensmark argues that the solar wind/cosmic ray/cloud connection is sufficient to explain the vast majority of all observed global temperature change. Not all scientists accept his theory, and some have even called it discredited. But the world’s largest particle physics laboratory, CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), which funded Svensmark’s earlier research, has now funded more comprehensive research, indicating that its leaders respect the work. It could spell the end of manmade global warming doom-saying, as suggested by the powerful correlation shown in the accompanying graph.

Click here to view the graph.

Why fear of catastrophic, manmade global warming is mistakenJune 3rd, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team
  Dr. Roy Spencer
 

 

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, explains the case against global warming alarmism in laymen’s terms in a new article. The gist of it is that the computer climate models get the role of clouds backward.The models assume that clouds decrease as surface temperature increases, allowing more solar energy to reach Earth surface and warm it. If that is so, then clouds are a positive feedback.

But Spencer explains that research he and others have published in the Journal of Climate and Geophysical Research Letters  shows that cloud cover increases as surface temperature rises, reflecting more solar energy back into space and thus cooling the surface. In other words, clouds are a negative feedback–exactly the opposite of what all the computer climate models assume. 

The consequence, Spencer says, is that instead of about 5.4 degrees F of warming in response to doubled CO2, we should expect only about 1 degree–an amount that would not have serious harmful effects but would likely instead be beneficial.

It’s official: You’re a dangerous polluter!April 22nd, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team

Despite declining public support for global warming alarmism, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) are pollution and endanger human health and welfare. If that were true, then every time you exhale you’d be emitting CO2 and would be endangering yourself and everyone else on Earth.

For a little sanity on the subject, we turn to a climatologist, former NASA scientist, and WeGetIt.org supporter, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, who posted some information Monday that puts things in perspective. Some abbreviated samples:

  • Is global warming happening now? No one knows because of year-to-year climate fluctuations, but temperatures stopped rising in 2001 and may be entering a significant cooling trend.
  • Is it warmer now than in thousands of years? No–and it was probably significantly warmer in the Medieval Warm Period.
  • Does declining Arctic sea ice evidence manmade global warming? Warming, yes; manmade, no, and recent trends are not significantly different from those of the 1930s.
  • Is Arctic sea ice melt rate increasing? No.
  • Is Antarctic sea ice diminishing? No.
  • Is CO2 a dangerous gas? “Well, if you breathe pure CO2, you will die–from a lack of oxygen, not because CO2 is poisonous. But if you breathe pure oxygen for very long, that will also kill you. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth; photosynthesis by plants on land and by plankton in the ocean depend on it. And without these forms of life, all the animals (and we humans) would die as well.”
  • How much has CO2 risen as a percentage of the atmosphere since 1958? Not much:

mauna-loa-co2-1-percent-scale

        That’s right, from a little under 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% to a little over 1/2 of 1/10 of 1%.

  • Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas? No, it’s about 3% of the greenhouse effect; water vapor (85% to 90%) and clouds (5% to 10%) outweigh it by far.
  • How much warming would doubled CO2 cause? Not more than 1 degree Centigrade (1/3 the central estimate of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which depends on computer models that wrongly count clouds as a positive feedback; Spencer’s satellite data show they’re negative).

What has caused the roughly 1 degree of warming in about the last century? Not CO2, since it hasn’t nearly doubled. Probably instead natural cycles, especially cloud responses to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.