Re: [asa] IPCC AR4 Bombshell: No skill in scientific forecasting

"According to Sloan and Wolfendale, the 2000 paper highlighting the
connection between cosmic rays and low-level clouds completely avoids
clouds at other altitudes. This is surprising because cosmic ray
ionization should increase with altitude."

While largely ignorant of this line of global-warming argumentation, I can think of a reason why this may not be surprising: There's a whole lot more water vapor at lower elevations that at high, so there are many more molecules to condense on the ions.

As one who took his PhD thesis data with cloud chambers, I can strongly affirm that condensation on ions occurs only under rather highly constrained conditions of pressure, temperature and water vapor concentration. To predict where clouds will form in the atmosphere requires meteorological expertise, not just a knowledge of where the ions are.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: PvM<mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
  To: Janice Matchett<mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 9:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] IPCC AR4 Bombshell: No skill in scientific forecasting

  A true bombshell, remember the claims by global warming deniers about
  the link between global warming and cosmic rays? Well, the outlook
  seems to be poor...

  At Wired Science Fraser Cain reports on the latest research on global
  warming and cosmic rays. There is no link:

  <quote>
      But T. Sloan from the University of Lancaster and A.W. Wolfendale
  from Durham University have looked carefully at the evidence and found
  it unconvincing. They published their results in a new paper called
  Cosmic Rays and Global Warming. Their research will be presented at
  the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, held in Merida Mexico
  from July 3 - July 11, 2007.

      According to Sloan and Wolfendale, the 2000 paper highlighting the
  connection between cosmic rays and low-level clouds completely avoids
  clouds at other altitudes. This is surprising because cosmic ray
  ionization should increase with altitude. Cosmic rays should be
  intercepted earlier by the atmosphere and turned into clouds, not down
  at the lowest altitudes. If cosmic rays were to blame, you would
  expect the exact opposite, with more high-altitude clouds
  </quote>

  http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/03/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming/<http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/03/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming/>

  <quote>
  It's also a fact that this issue was at first denied by such
  politicians; they said global warming didn't exist (Inhofe called it a
  "hoax"). Under relentless pressure from scientists and other
  reality-based people, these guys have finally admitted that yes, GW
  exists. Now, of course, they are trying to lay blame anywhere but on
  the corporations that pay them so handsomely.

  They have looked everywhere to push this blame: solar heating, natural
  orbital cycles, incomplete data. We can be pretty sure the first is
  not to blame, and the second is on much longer timescales than the
  very sudden rise we have been seeing in the past few years/decades. As
  for the third– well, it's easy to say "We're awaiting new data." But
  it's not terribly satisfying.

  And now, it looks like another potential natural cause may be going
  the same way. Fraser Cain, webmaster of Universe Today and blogger for
  Wired magazine, has an excellent new post up describing how cosmic
  rays are also not to blame for global warming.</quote>

  http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html<http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html>

  We may not hear from Janice further on this topic but to those
  interested in the science behind the fact of global warming, these
  excellent papers do much to lay to rest the almost desperate attempts
  by some to find anything but human causes for the recent global
  warming.

  Why? If that is where the evidence is pointing should we not take it
  seriously and develop a rational response?

  To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
  "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 10 05:38:12 2007