Re: Cosmic rays and climate

Don diddi da wrote:

"aracari" <spamtrap@váilable.here.com> wrote in message news:08fd0ee4adfb9f37925282f4823f9778@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
'Don diddi da' wrote thus:

"aracari" <spamtrap@váilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:f48a22e369bbbcea5e0d8745b53d68ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
'Don diddi da' wrote thus:

"aracari" <spamtrap@váilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:9748444e238fceae7f067ccabe817c25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
'Don diddi da' wrote thus:

"aracari" <spamtrap@váilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:a799bb83b4c2cdebd1f46a2fd4d0e8d4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
'Dirk Bruere at NeoPax' wrote thus:

http://www.physorg.com/news168353215.html

-snip-
The director of the Danish National Space Institute, DTU, Eigil
Friis-Christensen, was co-author with Svensmark of an early report on
the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, back in 1996. Commenting on
the latest paper he says, "The evidence has piled up, first for the
link
between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and
observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these
consistent
scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to
predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics".

Oh dear. What now for the religious believers of AGW?


Nothing possibly.
It will only effect future forecasting in that it is another factor to
account for.
Observed past and current measurement will already have had the above
influence noted.

The current political claim is that mankind is causing GW. This
NEW information appears to cast doubts on that theory.

At the very least it casts doubt on the accuracy of the computer
models used to predict temps etc 50 years out. I have always said
that there are inputs not known about and therefore not included
in the modeling. This looks like a clear confirmation of that.

No it doesn't cast doubts,

EH? Of course it does. A model with wrong, missing, unknown or
ignored inputs will produce wrong outputs which become more wrong
for each year the model forecast is cranked. In this case we are
talking about finely variable numbers, so accuracy is critical.

It helps if you don't snip mid sentence.

Nothing I snipped intended to change the context of what you were
asserting, afaics paraphrased as: the models may be wrong but it
doesn't really matter.

It depends if the model is wrong fundemantally or just needs refinment.
The whole sentence inferred the latter.

Just because a variable is wrong or missing doesn not alter the whole theory
but would alter future forcasting.

Nope.
You have no idea what data is missing and how wrong some of it is.

In science you have theory, observation.
If a theory matches observation then taht theory is correct, if it doesn't you find why, and by how much.
The theory may then need fundamental changing depending on the observation.
Of course observation may match theory but require small tweaks.
Cosmic rays are not a huge variable, not enough to rewrite the theory but one more thing to be taken into account.

The "theory" you refer to is based upon modeling, but it is known
to be wrong. As I stated earlier "it casts doubts".

It's also based on observation, experiment and well understood science.
Of course there is always things we do not know, taht was the same with the Big Bang theory, Black Hole theory and cosmic ray background theory.
Non of those where wrong because variable were wrong or unknow, they whre jsut refined.

This isn't new regarding cosmic rays, and the effect when copared to other
variables wil be tiny.

How do you know this? It may be significant. Read the report.

Well cosmic rays is supposed to result in increased amounts of cloud.
I've researched into this and the evidence from past cloud records showed it is minimal

"Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims. Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small"

And this latest report contradicts those findings.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Maunder Minimum
    ... never heard of huge low clouds formed by cosmic rays. ... Periods of intense solar activity, ... accompanied by lessened low level cloud formation ... over the oceans and a correspondingly warmer climate. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Cosmic rays and climate
    ... was co-author with Svensmark of an early report on ... the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, ... predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics". ... I've researched into this and the evidence from past cloud records showed it is minimal ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Cosmic rays and climate
    ... was co-author with Svensmark of an early report on ... the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, ... predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics". ... I've researched into this and the evidence from past cloud records showed it is minimal ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Cosmic rays and climate
    ... the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, ... predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics". ... I've researched into this and the evidence from past cloud records showed it ... faulty data inputs or missing inputs etc etc is rather academic. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Cosmic rays and climate
    ... the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, ... the report suggests that almost all global warming is due to changes in the Sun.It will be interesting to see what happens when the new measurements are fed into the old climate models. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)