The distortion of science for ideological purposes has a long history, and the results are generally ugly.

Saturday, October 28, 2006


The ramifications of the recent Danish experimental confirmation that Cosmic Rays affect cloud formation on earth remains poorly reported in the media. Ramifications? Quite because Cosmic Rays are essentially charged particles travelling at or near the speed of light and hit the earth from all directions.

Charged particles? Electricity in other words and indirect confirmation of the theories proposed by the Electric Universe

So what are the ramifications? Quite simple - the earth's climate is dominated by the earth's electrical interaction with its immediate environment. Changes in climate are due to external influences on the earth, whether from fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux or the interaction between the earth and other cosmic bodies as interpreted by Velikovsky from ancient texts from all civilisations.

Steve Milloy writes an excellent summary of the Danish research which is reproduced below:

Blunting the greenhouse panic

A new study provides experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in causing the Earth's climate to change. Given the stakes in the current debate over global warming, the research may very well turn out to be one of the most important climate experiments of our time-if only the media would report the story.

Ten years ago, Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover-that is, the greater the cosmic radiation, the greater the cloud cover. Clouds cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about 20 percent of incoming solar radiation back into space.

The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the Sun's magnetic field, which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures-precisely what was observed during the 20th century.

If correct, the Svensmark hypothesis poses a serious challenge to the current global warming alarmism that attributes the 20th century's warmer temperatures to man made emissions of greenhouse gases.

Just last week, Mr. Svensmark and other researchers from the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A-the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the venerable Royal Society of London-announcing that they had experimentally verified the physical mechanism by which cosmic rays affect cloud cover.

In the experiment, cosmic radiation was passed through a large reaction chamber containing a mixture of lower atmospheric gases at realistic concentrations that was exposed to ultraviolet radiation from lamps that mimic the action of the Sun's rays. Instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.

The data collected indicate that the electrons released by the cosmic rays acted as catalysts to accelerate the formation of stable clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules-the building blocks for clouds. [For more details about Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis and experiment, including high-quality animation, visit here]

"Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds as unproven," said Mr. Friis-Christensen who is the director of the Danish National Space Centre. "Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [This] experiment now shows they do so, and should help to put the cosmic ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research," he added.

But given the potential significance of Mr. Svensmark's experimentally validated hypothesis, it merits more than just a place on the agenda of international climate research-it should be at the very top of that agenda.

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect. Observational data indicate that low-cloud cover can vary as much as 2 percent in five years which, in turn, varies the heating at the Earth's surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square meter during that same period.

"That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square meter estimated by the [United Nations'] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution," says Mr. Svensmark.

That is, cloud cover changes over a five-year period can have 85 percent of the temperature effect on the Earth that has been claimed to have been caused by nearly 200 years of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. The temperature effects of cloud cover during the 20th century could be as much as 7 times greater than the alleged temperature effect of 200 years worth of additional carbon dioxide and several times greater than that of all additional greenhouse gases combined.

So although it has been taken for granted by global warming alarmists that human activity has caused the climate to warm, Mr. Svensmark's study strongly challenges this assumption.

Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Mr. Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?

Between manmade greenhouse gas emissions, land use patterns and air pollution, humans may have had a net impact on global temperature. But if so, no one yet knows the net sign (that is, plus or minus) of that impact.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Svensmark's potentially myth-shattering study has so far been largely ignored by the media. Though published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, it's only been reported-and briefly at that-in The New Scientist (Oct. 7), Space Daily (Oct. 6) and the Daily Express (U.K., Oct. 6).

The media's lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Mr. Svensmark's experiment so much as it reflects upon the media's and global warming lobby's excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.

Now it is fast becoming clear that climate science is scientifically incomplete - climate science does not include the noble profession of geology yet the earth is our principal area of study - most importantly past climates which affect how rocks are eroded and the subsequent development of sedimentary rocks.

Climate science seems to have isolated itself in its inclusive world of computer modelling and dominated by, if the three mean spirited letters to The Age below are any indication, technicians rather than scientists.

But climate science is not the only scientific discipline that suffers from peer-reviewed mediocrity - astronomy is another discipline divorced from physical reality as demonstrated here. Black holes, neutron stars, magnetic fields without corresponding electric current and an obsession with computer modelling similar to that of climate science.

We geologists are also extensively involved in computer modelling but with one crucial difference - we actually test our models by drilling and mining, so we know all the pitfalls and errors that can occur in computer modelling geology and geophysics and avoid them. We therefore recognise that the much vaunted climate models are nothing but superbly programmed instances of BS. Climate it a non-linear chaotic system and any scientist who asserts such systems can be simulated (or modelled) is in thrall of his own specious reasoning.

The worst error climate science has made to date is the computation of the earth's thermal state by the grid cell method used by Jones et al. In effect the addition of "intensive" variables when patently such a mathematical operation is impermissible. Adding temperature is no different to adding percentages (both are intensive variables) and getting the nonsensical result of 120% of some physical property. In terms of temperature its reduces to asserting that adding water at 4 degrees Celsius to another body of water at 10 degrees Celsius will result in a combined result of water at 14 degrees Celsius. Total nonsense physically but quite possible mathematically. It's called innumeracy in polite circles though others might suggest a stronger term.

One fact has also emerged from reading the three letters below - a visceral hatred of geologists and a presumption we are paid mercenaries of the fossil fuel industry. Clearly The Age, a proven left-wing newspaper, has once again shown its lack of balance in not presenting both sides of the climate debate. It implies by the total negative reaction my letter that no other scientists support the climate sceptic position.

Quite wrong. And also quite wrong are the conclusions climate science makes of their primary assumption that producing CO2 into the atmosphere will produce a run-away Greenhouse effect.


One other interesting fact is also emerging - the mining industry's inability to find new "world class mines" whether iron ore, diamond, copper or whatever. What mineral deposits we have found can be shown to be, with some minor exceptions, restricted to the easily accessible outcropping parts of the earth.

Some of us are starting to wonder whether our basic geological theories are wrong and it seems this is so but will be a topic for another time.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


May 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?