There are a couple of emerging theories on clouds, and how they form, and in time these theories may blow away the current so-called consensus on anthropogenic global warming from carbon dioxide as a key driver of climate.
One of these theories concerns cosmic rays.
A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the words "cosmic rays" with some enthusiasm at a Sunday lunch and everyone looked a me with a degree of apprehension and no one asked me to "explain further". I could see the minds of the 10 or so others at the table ticking over. They were probably thinking, "What on earth is she talking about?".
Well, I was about to attend a lecture by Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen, the director of the Danish National Space Centre.
This centre has published research suggesting that satellite observations of cloud cover and laboratory observations of aerosol formation indicate climate is signifcantly affected by the cosmic ray flux, modulated by the solar magnetic field.
Slide from presentation by Eigil Friis-Christensen, Mittagong, April 5, 2008
Current United Nation's IPCC climate models do not incorporate the influence of cosmic rays and therefore according to Dr Friis-Christensen can not hope to predict future climate.
The week before Dr Friis-Christensen gave his lecture at Mittagong, a paper was published suggesting the potential influence of cosmic rays was over-rated. Bloggers Lubos Motl and Nir Shaviv discuss the problems with the Sloan & Wolfendale paper which was given significant exposure by the BBC.
More to come on cosmic rays in part 2 of this post.
-------------------
see also my blog post:
Graeme Pearman Claims Antarctica is Warming (Global Warming and The Cosmos, Part 1)
[...] [1] Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate (Part 1) https://climatelab.com.au/2008/04/cosmic-rays-clouds-and-climate-part-1/ [...]
[...] it – and thought it so good you should read about it a second time. I posted ‘Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate (Part 1)’ on April 13, [...]
[...] Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation. Earlier this year I reported on a lecture that I attended given by Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen, the Centre’s [...]
"Wagner what I really wanted was an analysis of cloud cover on the Earth and whether the actual cloud level can be shown to be correlated with CRs."
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate#MSJGR
see figure 3
Mr T:
"NOAA Aircraft to Probe Arctic Pollution
April 7, 2008
NOAA scientists are now flying through springtime Arctic pollution to find out why the region is warming — and summertime sea ice is melting — faster than predicted. Some 35 NOAA researchers are gathering with government and university colleagues in Fairbanks, Alaska, to conduct the study through April 23.
“The Arctic is changing before our eyes,” said A.R. Ravishankara, director of the chemistry division at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. “Capturing in detail the processes behind this large and surprisingly rapid transformation is a unique opportunity for understanding climate changes occurring elsewhere.”
Observations from instruments on the ground, balloons, and satellites show the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe. Summer sea-ice extent has decreased by nearly 40 percent compared to the 1979–2000 average, and the ice is thinning.
Industry, transportation, and biomass burning in North America, Europe, and Asia are emitting trace gases and tiny airborne particles that are polluting the polar region, forming an “Arctic Haze” every winter and spring. Scientists suspect these pollutants are speeding up the polar melt.
Called ARCPAC (Aerosol, Radiation, and Cloud Processes affecting Arctic Climate), the project is a NOAA contribution to International Polar Year 2008" -
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080407_arctichaze.html
Thanks Jan and Wagner, am a bit busy right now to read all these.
Wagner what I really wanted was an analysis of cloud cover on the Earth and whether the actual cloud level can be shown to be correlated with CRs.