Cosmic rays and global warming

The influence of GCR’s (galactic cosmic rays) and global temperature is a hot subject:  the theory developed by Friis-Christensen, Laassen and  Svensmark, and now studied in the CLOUD experiment by Jack Kirby says essentially this: GCRs deliver condensation  nuclei for lower clouds. If the GCR intensity is high, there will be more of these cooling clouds, and global temperatures will fall. The sun’s magnetic activity (solar wind) modulates the GCRs: more active sun => higher solar wind => lower GCRs => less low altitude clouds => less cooling => higher temperatures.
The effect can be nicely seen in the following picture (from http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html):

Compare the 2 smoothed curves of temperature anomaly (red) and GCR’s (grey): most temperature anomaly maxima coincide with GCR’s minima (at least from 2004 on). As expected, this theory is bitterly attacked by other scientists, most in the AGW alarmist camp (e.g. see here). For the moment, this controversial issue is not solved; but the GCR/cloud theory gives a good example of a potential warming/cooling mechanism unrelated to variations of the CO2 concentration.

Prof.  Qing-Bin Lu from the University of Waterloo in Canada has published a new paper (see abstract here, full paper is paywalled by ScienceDirect) , arguing that GCR’s modulate the ozone layer, and that this modulation may explain the warming of the past 30 years and the ongoing cooling seen since about 2000. The paper is large (87 pages) and makes for some heavy reading. The GCR deliver the electrons that may activate chlorinated molecules attached to ice surfaces. These molecules (of freon-type for example) than do destroy a more or less greater part of the ozone layer, which will lead to a global warming: less ozone in the stratosphere means less IR absorption, hence cooler stratosphere. As this cooler stratosphere does emit less heat into space (and the incoming energy from the sun remaining the same), the troposphere and surface of the globe must absorb more and get warmer to satisfy the balance of energy. Lu introduces an index called EESC (equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine) to quantify the ozone loss.
He finds a very good correlation between that index and global temperature change:

If he is right, we should accept these 2 conclusions:

1. global temperatures are not driven by atmospheric CO2 concentrations (or at least CO2 is not the dominant factor)

2. we should expect a coming cooling period extending possibly up to 2050, caused essentially by a smaller and smaller ozone depletion.

This latter prediction has been made by many scientists (one of the first being the late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt), often based on a very different analysis. What we see in this research is that the solar influence on the global climate comes more from indirect solar effects than from variations of the TSI (total solar irradiance). Even the Earth magnetism, another parameter influenced by the solar wind, could play a major role, as told in this article and as investigated by a team of the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris.

Copenhagen cop15: R.I.P.

Now that the Copenhagen circus is over, and ended in a difficult to hide chaos, more and more interesting news are emerging:

1. The IPCC chairman R. Pachauri had (and has) numerous links to companies and organisations profiting from the GW scare:  read this Telegraph article! Among others, Lord Monckton was instrumental in bringing these well-hidden links to the open.

2.

William Connolley (a funding member of the realclimate team) has been known for a long time as an eager Wikipedia administrator, who changed/edited/deleted everything dealing with AGW so to impose his opinion. According to L. Solomon he created/changed more than 5200 Wikipedia articles. Read also another, older  L. Solomon article in the Nationalpost newspaper on this. A short comment by D. Maxeiner tells us that Connolley has been stripped  of his administrator status in Sep. 2009 for “misusing his privileges”, and coins the new word “Wikipediagate”.

Connolleys behaviour is one example more of the arrogance of a band of climate-studying scientists, who are unable to handle the scientific discourse in a decent manner.  In truly Lyssenko-type manner, every opinion differing from their’s should not be allowed.

PS:  See here that W. Connolley ran again for a seat at the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, but he didn’t make it. He was the candidate with a very large number of  opposing votes. So it will be interesting to watch if the Wikipedia climate pages will become more balanced.

______________________

Now that cop15 is over, I wish that the extraordinary sums devoted to climate-change will be cut down to a reasonable amount, and that more efforts will be put on the energy problems. Future clean, affordable and reliable energy is the BIG global problem. What we need, are multiple and lasting crash efforts in this domain. The planet does not need one million alarmist climate scientists; in my opinion a couple of thousand good ones will suffice. Nor do we need hugely expensive and opaque mafiosi-type cap-and-trade politics trying to solve what seems to be a minor problem (or not a problem at all), and upping energy prices to sky-high levels.  The planet will not be saved (accepting that there is “peril dans la demeure”) if most of the western people will be made energy poor by extravagant political decisions.

Read also this good comment by D. Maxeiner in Die Welt.

Climate refugees

The subject of millions of poor people driven out of their countries or their homes by the consequences of climate change (mostly rising sea level) is one of the great recurrent scares;  suggesting that these millions of people will submerge wealthier countries makes for much  goose pimples and hair rising in the audience. That these scenarios are (and have been) absolutely overblown results from a new study that says that much fewer (than projected) refugees will leave their country (strange to still call people NOT leaving their country “refugees”!):

“In general, countries expect to manage environmental migration internally, with the exception of small island states that in some cases have already led to islands disappearing under water, forcing international migration” says this report.
I have strong doubts on the reality of these islands which supposedly have disappeared due to climate change, and would have liked some concrete verifiable examples.  During these COP15 days everybody screams about rising sea-levels, whereas the data of the University of Colorado in Boulder clearly show a slowing rise (that is the rate of change is lower since about 2002).

ClimateGate

Back from nearly 3 weeks spent in Florida, I will not comment in this blog on ClimateGate. There are many good sites working on this extraordinary event, like Wattsupwiththat, ClimateAudit, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Blackboard and many more.

Here in Luxembourg this scandal has practically been passed over in silence by the main media. These concentrate on issuing ever more alarmist nonsense and real brainwashing before (and probably during) COP15. All prudence and non-certitude is meaningless for them: the world will smolder and burn in climate-hell, if we do not change rapidly not only our live-styles, but our most fundamental working of society. The western world has sinned, and must completely change to be pardoned its climate-debt. On the way to these forced changes, democracy is more and more seen as a hindrance.

Comment added 13Dec09:   Please read on this danger for democracy the excellent article in “Die Welt”: Die Allmachtsfantasien der Klimaforscher