Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Cosmic Ray Flux study from Geological Society of America

Expand Messages
  • flaney
    See page 4 for paper. ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf ... In summary, we find that with none of the CO2 reconstructions can the doubling
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 2 9:23 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      See page 4 for paper.

      ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf

      ---
      In summary, we find that with none of the CO2 reconstructions can the
      doubling effect of CO2 on low-latitude sea temperatures be larger
      than ~1.9 °C, with the expected value being closer to 0.5 °C.
      These results differ somewhat from the predictions of the general
      circulation models (GCMs) (IPCC, 2001), which typically imply a CO2
      doubling effect of ~1.5–5.5 °C global warming, but they are
      consistent with alternative lower estimates of 0.6–1.6 °C
      (Lindzen,
      1997).

      ---

      One Does Not Beg The Sun For Mercy
    • F Cote
      Hi Flaney, This looks interesting. I am going to sit down and read this one over closely over the next few days. Just skimming it, I see the claim is made that
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 2 12:07 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Flaney,

        This looks interesting. I am going to sit down and read this one
        over closely over the next few days. Just skimming it, I see the
        claim is made that about 2/3 of the temperature variation is not CO2
        related. Which leaves us, if confirmed, with a bit more breathing
        space to get sustainable development done right the first time around
        (because by implication from the authors' own claim, the remaining
        1/3 is CO2 caused, which is rising, which - if unchecked - will do us
        in). I really would like to think they are right. Maybe there is some
        hope for homo sapiens after all.. : ) : )
        On my screen there is an ad blocking part of the link. People
        should note that the complete link appears in the text below.

        Ecologically, Frank

        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, flaney <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > See page 4 for paper.
        >
        > ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
        >
        > ---
        > In summary, we find that with none of the CO2 reconstructions can
        the
        > doubling effect of CO2 on low-latitude sea temperatures be larger
        > than ~1.9 °C, with the expected value being closer to 0.5 °C.
        > These results differ somewhat from the predictions of the general
        > circulation models (GCMs) (IPCC, 2001), which typically imply a CO2
        > doubling effect of ~1.5–5.5 °C global warming, but they are
        > consistent with alternative lower estimates of 0.6–1.6 °C
        > (Lindzen,
        > 1997).
        >
        > ---
        >
        > One Does Not Beg The Sun For Mercy
      • F Cote
        Hi flaney, On page 5 of the article the authors state: Despite.. empirical observaions and correlations, the solar-Cosmic Ray Flux-climate linnk is still
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 3 12:24 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi flaney,

          On page 5 of the article the authors state: "Despite.. empirical
          observaions and correlations, the solar-Cosmic Ray Flux-climate linnk
          is still missing a ROBUST <original emphasis> physical formulation..
          this may change after the advocated experimental tests (..) are
          carried out". This is where the O3 hole saga began: hypothesis leads
          to "advocated experimental tests" --> several cycles of
          confirmation/hypothesis tuning/re-testing and finally acceptance.
          Thanks for posting this. : )

          Personally, I don't this really changes the fundamental argument
          that humanity should not be messing around with the life-support
          systems of planet earth at least until we understand better what the
          heck we are doing. If anything, the uncertainties in our knowledge of
          the operation of the climate machine this research reveals should
          tend, I think, to re-inforce - rather than refute - the "caution-till-
          you-know-what-you-are-doing" approach I advocate.

          Ecologically,

          Frank

          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, flaney <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > See page 4 for paper.
          >
          > ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
          >
          > ---
          > In summary, we find that with none of the CO2 reconstructions can
          the
          > doubling effect of CO2 on low-latitude sea temperatures be larger
          > than ~1.9 °C, with the expected value being closer to 0.5 °C.
          > These results differ somewhat from the predictions of the general
          > circulation models (GCMs) (IPCC, 2001), which typically imply a CO2
          > doubling effect of ~1.5–5.5 °C global warming, but they are
          > consistent with alternative lower estimates of 0.6–1.6 °C
          > (Lindzen,
          > 1997).
          >
          > ---
          >
          > One Does Not Beg The Sun For Mercy
        • pawnfart
          Dane Research on Cosmic Rays—A Gaia/EMF Review This is an attempt to review the Danish cosmic ray research which correlates glacial periods with changes in
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 3 9:50 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dane Research on Cosmic Rays—A Gaia/EMF Review

            This is an attempt to review the Danish cosmic ray research which
            correlates glacial periods with changes in the cosmic ray flux. I
            intend, however, to add to the coherence to the discussion of cosmic
            rays and give this discussion context, because as this discussion has
            been stated, it is incomplete. My views are more contained in a
            theory that climate is fundamentally electrical and biological in its
            substantial forcings.

            The basics.

            The water molecule is polar. What that means is from an electrical
            standpoint, it tends to have positive and negative sides. This
            then results in chemical AND electrical properties. Water has what
            are called van der Waals forces between themselves. This becomes
            important for energy exchanges between the different phases of
            water. This phase change energy is sometimes called a delta energy.
            For instance, if you were to take a pan of water, and bring it to a
            boil, you could put a thermometer in the water and it would read 212
            degrees F. and stay there at that temperature despite the water
            continually being heated. That is because the water as it boils
            gives the phase change energy to the water.

            The water is composed of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms in
            the shape of a `v'. The hydrogen atoms tend to lose their electrons
            to the oxygen molecule, and hence the combined molecule tends to be
            more positive to the top of the `v' and negative to the bottom. As
            opposite electrical forces attract, this provides a framework for an
            attractive forcing, or van der Waals forces.

            Heat energy is the movement of the molecule itself. Water can
            vibrate, translate, and rotate. These motions against the bonds of
            the water molecule itself is heat energy. If two water molecules are
            attracted to one another by their van der Waals forces, the heat
            energy required to move them apart is the phase change energy from
            liquid water to water gas. Likewise, water in solid form has a phase
            change energy to become liquid.

            Dust.

            Dust in the air important from an electrical standpoint. That is
            because since water is polar, that charge will attract the water to
            it, and there combine with other water molecules. If several water
            molecules combine with the dust, phase change energies are given to
            the surrounding air, and the warmed air causes uplifting. To what
            degree water is attracted to particle with a given charge will depend
            on humidity, and relative humidity will depend on the temperature of
            the air and the pressure of the air. If the air is relatively dry,
            there will be a larger tendency for the water to escape the particle
            and give lose phase change energy for the remaining water droplet.
            This is what drives fog. It is also why fog burns off as the day
            comes. The electrical input to this dynamic is limited because air
            is electrically insulating.

            Dust in a humid place is another thing. There the water that
            evaporates off the dust particle is quickly replaced by another water
            molecule that is nearby. Further, the electrical aspect is amplified
            by the fields and conductivity associated with higher humidity. The
            attraction of van der Waals to a dust particle with a charge is less
            limited by the insulating properties of dry air and larger charges
            can accumulate on the particles, causing a greater attractive force
            than the loss of water vapor from the droplet from heating. The
            formation of water droplets heats the cloud and causes it to give
            phase change energy to the surrounding air. This causes the cloud
            to rise and drives convection processes. The greater the charge on a
            particle, the greater degree it will warm the air, the more it will
            attract water vapor to droplet form.

            The humid warmer air has a tendency to rise. As the water in a
            forming cloud rises, it enters air that is thinner, and therefore
            which has a different relative humidity. Clouds will move to their
            electrical and thermal equilibrium. But then as forming clouds reach
            a thin air that causes a specific rate of evaporation, they also
            reach another temperature where yet another phase change can occur—to
            ice, and cirrus form.

            Cirrus have an additional electrical characteristic in that they are
            moved by large scale low frequency EMFs. This movement will aid in
            infra red trapping of heat underneath them, and alters the relative
            humidity and cloud formation dynamic. These electrical
            characteristics are then modulated by the biosphere toward a living
            earth. The Danish research as it has been interpreted is problematic
            in that associating the changes in climate simply to the cosmic ray
            flux without looking the modulating aspect of the microbrial
            biosphere completely misses the point. It would be like talking
            about the thermostat in your house when you have a 106 degree F.
            fever. The incoming chaotic signal is far less important than the
            ability of the biosphere to modulate against extremes.

            The Danish research does not distinguish between cosmic particles and
            solar in terms of their impact on cloud electrodynamics. The sun's
            input of electrical pulses corresponds to a radiated increase,
            because solar winds vary with coronal mass ejections or CMEs.
            Because ions whose source is from the sun are directed to the closed
            isobars of the earth's EMF, and because at the closed isobars
            conditions are cold enough to lack convection and charge separations
            that over come the small currents created by the sun in the solar
            winds, those ions act as a signal that radiative increases act to
            amplify. OTOH, cosmic rays are not associated with a radiation
            increase. Indeed, cosmic rays may have speeds that decrease the
            ability of the earth's EMF to redirect any of this energy and cause
            impacts on particles that change the whole dynamic of cloud formation
            and heat retention.


            The Harris et al paper on the 1970 La Nina and the 1998 El Nino and
            GHG and cirrus cloud behaviors followed by the Lindzen `iris' paper
            fail to consider the EMF character of what is occurring. Namely,
            that the inverse relationship of cirrus to cloud weighted SSTs that
            Lindzen finds is associated with large scale low frequency EMF facing
            induction changes by the ocean trade currents of the North and South
            Equatorials compared to the Equatorial—that even though the
            Equatorial is warmer, and a warmer conductor is less resistive, the
            direction of current is reversed, and following the polarity of the
            earth's EMF and Fleming's right hand rule, the Equatorial inducts
            electrically AGAINST cirrus formation. And, respecting the Harris
            paper, in the tropics during La Nina, the West Pacific is
            biologically depleted. This gets to the modulation of EMFs by the
            biosphere.

            This EMF modulation by the biosphere occurs because if the ocean
            surface is warm, there is no upwelling of nutrient rich colder
            waters. These waters, while cold and therefore less conductive,
            overcome that lack of conductivity related to temperature by the
            conductivity from the biological activity increase. Hence, ENSO is a
            cycle prompted by global biological feedbacks. These feedbacks are
            in particularly strong form near shorelines, where the microbial
            concentrations that increase conductivities is matched with methane
            hydrate fields of biogenic origin that act with electrical insulative
            properties, all in an effort to modulate both temperature and ocean
            chemistry toward living earth conditions.

            Cosmic ray flux occurs on timescales and such a manner that the
            feedbacks are too much. The electrical storms during glacier laying
            events have been known to split house sized bolders with strikes. As
            the whole the EMF dynamic changes, the oceans drop and depressurize
            hydrates. Ice laid on the land prevents sedimentation from washing
            down rivers, and that prevents hydrate field nutrients and bouncy.
            Hydrates are only found along the shores because only there is the
            sedimentation there to keep them, lighter than the oceans, at the
            depths where they form. As the degree of places where hydrology is
            fed back, electrically, via hydrate fields, decreases, so does the
            global biosphere. The erosion of carbon and the cycling of it by the
            biosphere impacts conductivities as well. CO2 stirred in the oceans
            causes free electrons, which in turn increases conductivties with
            wind shifts. The SOI index is a good example of that. While wind
            driven inductions may be considered, the counter example of a
            tropical storm provides an answer why the stirring is more important
            over short periods of time. Tropical storms have winds of all
            directions, and hence should have, if induction were the only EMF
            conductivity issue, asymmetry. However, they are with winds in a
            circular pattern and have point EMFs that have been observed. The
            CO2 partial pressure changes have been observed as well, and during
            the time when the winds move, the relatively quiet eye will have a
            conductivity meaning! Again, it has to do with stirring of ocean
            surfaces and conductivities.

            There have been likewise observations of ocean tidal or gravitational
            waves and weather and climate observations brought on by changes in
            conductivities brought on by the stirring of the oceans that results.
            These direct observations have been confirmed by Keeling and Whorf
            and matched to the Little Ice Age cycle. The fact that the Danish
            research cannot explain the Little Ice Age cycle says volumes about
            its limitations but also what it means in the whole of things.

            Placing the Danish research in the context of CO2 from fossil fuels
            has led to another false indication by the false skeptics. That is,
            false skeptics will argue chaos then, chaos now, burn fossil fuels.
            Yet, CO2 is modulated but he biosphere in the context of each age.
            Even now, during an interglacial in terms of cosmic ray flux, CO2 is
            modulated toward a living earth, and CO2 has direct and important
            ELECTRICAL meaning. Indeed, it should be thought of as global FEVER,
            not global warming. The truth is the problem is modulation then,
            modulation now, don't create defects in biological feedback loops by
            taking that which is not in the biosphere and placing it there.

            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
            wrote:
            > Hi Flaney,
            >
            > This looks interesting. I am going to sit down and read this one
            > over closely over the next few days. Just skimming it, I see the
            > claim is made that about 2/3 of the temperature variation is not
            CO2
            > related. Which leaves us, if confirmed, with a bit more breathing
            > space to get sustainable development done right the first time
            around
            > (because by implication from the authors' own claim, the remaining
            > 1/3 is CO2 caused, which is rising, which - if unchecked - will do
            us
            > in). I really would like to think they are right. Maybe there is
            some
            > hope for homo sapiens after all.. : ) : )
            > On my screen there is an ad blocking part of the link. People
            > should note that the complete link appears in the text below.
            >
            > Ecologically, Frank
            >
            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, flaney <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > > See page 4 for paper.
            > >
            > > ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
            > >
            > > ---
            > > In summary, we find that with none of the CO2 reconstructions can
            > the
            > > doubling effect of CO2 on low-latitude sea temperatures be larger
            > > than ~1.9 °C, with the expected value being closer to 0.5 °C.
            > > These results differ somewhat from the predictions of the general
            > > circulation models (GCMs) (IPCC, 2001), which typically imply a
            CO2
            > > doubling effect of ~1.5–5.5 °C global warming, but they are
            > > consistent with alternative lower estimates of 0.6–1.6 °C
            > > (Lindzen,
            > > 1997).
            > >
            > > ---
            > >
            > > One Does Not Beg The Sun For Mercy
          • pawnfart
            http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000670.html Jeff Norman there writes: [moderator] All discussions of what exactly M-H level 1 may be carried on
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 19 12:56 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000670.html

              Jeff Norman there writes:

              "[moderator] All discussions of what exactly M-H level 1 may be
              carried on elsewhere outside of this forum. [/moderator] "

              This is a direct reference to me, Mike Doran--the M denoting Mike. I
              was booted off this site for calling these RWNs for what they are--
              contrary corporate state opinions are selectively tolerated. The
              discussion there in this thread is typical. Normally, the board is
              dead, because, afterall, it is spiritually and intellectually dead
              and hateful, and does not love the truth. And while Tom Rees is the
              current object of slander with comments like six month honeymoons,
              and he responds truly:

              "My, we have all had a jolly old time with the character
              assassination here, haven't we! Nothing better than getting round
              for a big group hug and reassuring yourselves that those who disturb
              your cloistered world view are stupid, egregious, and probably mad. "

              He, and to a lessor extent Ryan Atwater, who posted 06-25-2003 09:14
              PM, are going to be the object of my comments. I have no faith in
              the majority of posters there, particularly Norman, who is an
              intellectual coward and works for a power company, with little
              motive in his writing other than propaganda.

              I have posted here and there and everywhere that the so called
              warmers and skeptics have continually fought each other's straw men,
              and have horribly failed in defining the biological and electrical
              processes that force climate, and how human activity creates defects
              in the biological feedback loops involved.

              On Atwater's post, the sattilite data is nicely showing a modulating
              variance. This is NOT showing a periodic function, nor is it a
              chaotic one. Modulation is the only kind of feedback system that
              would cause this kind of oscillation. ENSO, according to core data
              from Equador going back 15,000 years, has only been stabile the past
              5,000 years. During this time, the cycle varies about every 2 to 7
              years. Again, not purely periodic. Not chaotic, either. Something
              must drive this back and forth, and so far, nothing reasonable has
              been shown. BUT, because upwelling increases the potential for
              biological activity, upwelling then has significant UNCOUPLED (no
              tie between cloud behavior and sea surface temperatures) electrical
              meaning, as the biosphere contains chemistries and does not diffuse
              them as lifeless chemistry would. This THEN is your driving force
              for the reversal. This is your modulation, so expressed the past
              5,000 years in the ENSO oscillation. This is not chaos was, chaos
              is, burn fossil fuels, but modulation was, mudulation is, protect
              living earth processes and protect the earth's ability to feedback
              living conditions.

              When you have 500 year El Ninos, particularly following Mt Pinatubo
              and the SST cooling that would go with it, upwelling form the
              cooling of the early 1990s is followed by a biological bloom and EMF
              conductivies that support anomaly events. Where CO2 enters is that
              it is both a bio mass increasing agent--to these bio conductivity
              cycles AND it directly increases conductivities by gas carbonic acid
              electron exchanges in wind swept oceans, thereby altering the cloud
              dynamics. As cloud dynamics comprise the key forcing, NOT CO2 as a
              green house gas, what we are left with is global fever, and YES it
              IS an illness--a defect in a bio feedback loop. 500 year El Ninos
              and warmest 10 years in a 1,000 speak to this fever.

              Now, to Rees. Rees claims that demolishes the argument of one Ronain-
              -who posts Dr. Peter T. Doran's Home Page in this thread:

              http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000597.html

              Dr. Doran is no relation--unless you may go back hundreds of years
              to Ireland. But Dr. Doran's data is interesting because it UNCOUPLES
              warming deeper ocean temparatures in the Southern Ocean and warming
              surface and SSTs near where B-21 and 22 melted and broke off with
              anomaly COOLING in Anarctica. BUT, what is significant is that this
              uncoupling IS consistant with direction of ocean current, and the
              fact that the warmer a conducter in the oceans, the better it
              inducts AGAINST cirrus--and hence by ocean current direction there
              are anomalies going the other way, against a thermal coupling. This
              is yet another way of stating the Lindzen problem, which again, is
              good data but fails to understand the ELECTRICAL behavior of clouds
              and specifically the inducting direction of current of the North and
              South Equatorials compared to the Equatorial.

              The comments by Tom Rees hardly equates to destruction. Indeed, it
              is more straw bashing ignorance--about a living earth.



              ++++++++++++++++++++++++++


              BTW, I have emailed Dr. Doran--no response. Dr. Doran has no EMF or
              bio training. Tom Rees is a biologist with no EMF training.

              Rees has posted here but refused to engage. I think, that while he
              claims to be one who relies on the evidence, is actually much more
              comfortable with reassuring himself that those who disturb his
              cloistered world view are stupid, egregious, and probably mad--and
              therefore totes the warmer talking points pretty much line by line.
              Stupidly, he has effect right, and cause wrong, and in in so erring,
              does more harm than good.



              ++++++++++++++++


              http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000568.html

              Rees also mentions this Alaska melting thread. Again, without an EMF
              or bio training, one cannot appreciate what PDO IS, or what
              directions of current mean as in the Alaska current for induction,
              in the context of a warming ocean, to temperature anomalies. Parts
              of Alaska can warm, and others cool, even as oceans warm, just by
              the relative current direction meaning on the EMF behavior toward
              clouds. Herein, Bomber Dave's comments ARE appropriate--that there
              has been a failure to couple CO2 as a green house gas with the
              behaviors described. But that failure cuts both ways, with Bomber
              Dave's insisting, wrongly, that the burden of proof should be on the
              warmer's to make that causal connnection. In the legal profession,
              once a lower threshhold is met that shows that there is a problem,
              the burden SHIFTS. That is, as global fever has been WELL
              articulated emperically, I think that the true skeptic has the
              burden going the other way. In this case, however, as EMFs DO couple
              cloud behaviors, and there is more and more evidence of this, such
              as w/ cosmic ray flux studies and the like, that the higher burdens
              of proof have been met.

              +++++++++++++++

              http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000658.html

              Rees takes issue a view here acticulated by some here (solarists) in
              published article about solar raditive flux. The problem is, again,
              the study fails to look at solar electrical output and the signal
              noise issue of cloud formation dynamics associated with isobars of
              the earth EMF and low convection against the high convection and
              high current from charge separations in the tropical regions. In
              short, the pure thermal coupling fails. Indeed, if this coupling
              existed, every time there was a CME (coronal mass ejection) or a
              solar flare, there would be storms everywhere globally. But that
              isn't the case. Nor is it the case, for instance, that El Nino peaks
              at solar peak--it does not. This is so because the electrical and
              thermal variables are tied to uncoupled electrical behaviors--that
              in the end the biosphere modulates.



              http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000555.html

              Citing this link:

              http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1295/

              This started another thread Rees discussed. About halfway down the
              page is a picture of SST and wind anomalies of the so called PDO.
              What is really interesting is how the wind direction in the North
              Pacific neatly COUPLES with the SSTs--again consistant with an
              induction potential and cloud behavior, and then resulting heat
              retained and oceans warmed.

              Here Rees actually says something articulate well respecting the
              burden of proof on the issue of climate resting with the "warmers":

              "I strongly disagree. To say that presupposes that I'm the only one
              proposing an intervention. But you are also proposing an
              intervention - you're proposing the release of a colossal amount of
              GHG into the atmosphere. Therefore, it's equally valid for me to say
              that the burden of proof lies with you!

              However, I do not think that the burden of proof lies with either of
              us - and not just because proof is not obtainable at this stage.
              Rather, we need to recognise that there are a whole range of options
              open to us, and that each of these options is associated with a
              cost/benefit, which in turn depends on the risks of outcomes
              associated with each option, and the hazard they confer.

              Therefore, we need to work out, as far as possible, the risk and
              hazard associated with each option. We will never have certainty.

              But whether we will have warming or not does not depend upon our
              level of knowledge. Just because the future is uncertain, doesn't
              mean the risk of fossil fuel emission is lower. In fact, it means
              that the risk is higher. "

              Strangely, 'uncertainty' is a chaos idiot term--one that a biologist
              should be more in tune against.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.