Main Page | Report this Page
 
Loading..
   
Science Forum Index  »  Physics Forum  »  In support of Henrik Svensmark
Page 1 of 1    
Author Message
Mike Jr.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:00 am
Guest
I read the BBC article on Mike Lockwood & Claus Fröhlich's refutation
of Henrik Svensmark's theory linking cosmic rays to the earth's cloud
cover in Royal Society's journal Proceedings A.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

I was less than impressed. Others have pointed out the flaws in Mike
Lockwood & Claus Fröhlich's paper. For example, see:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Critique_Lockwood_Gregory/critique_lockwood.pdf

Contrary to Mike Lockwood & Claus Fröhlich claim, the data supports (I
didn't say proves) the inference that cosmic Ray impact on cloud
formation is modulated by the solar sunspot cycle and reinforces UV
atmospheric heating trends. When the Sunspot cycle is at a Solar Max,
cosmic rays and cloud formation are at a minimum (more heat). When
Cloud formation is high, the earth’s lower atmosphere albeto is high
which reflects away more of the Sun’s energy leading to cooling during
low sunspot activity. This can best be seen by looking at Figure 8:
"Cosmic ray neutrons are inversely proportional to solar activity and
directly proportional to low cloudiness (cloud data from Palle-Bago
and Butler 2002)" which can be found in the lower half of
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf

--Mike Jr.
Back to top
Mike Jr.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:16 am
Guest
On Apr 25, 5:00 pm, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote:
I read the BBC article on Mike Lockwood & Claus Fröhlich's refutation
of Henrik Svensmark's theory linking cosmic rays to the earth's cloud
cover in Royal Society's journal Proceedings A.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

I was less than impressed.  Others have pointed out the flaws in Mike
Lockwood & Claus Fröhlich's paper.  For example, see:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Criti...

Contrary to Mike Lockwood & Claus Fröhlich claim, the data supports (I
didn't say proves) the inference that cosmic Ray impact on cloud
formation is modulated by the solar sunspot cycle and reinforces UV
atmospheric heating trends.  When the Sunspot cycle is at a Solar Max,
cosmic rays and cloud formation are at a minimum (more heat). When
Cloud formation is high, the earth’s lower atmosphere albeto is high
which reflects away more of the Sun’s energy leading to cooling during
low sunspot activity.  This can best be seen by looking at Figure 8:
"Cosmic ray neutrons are inversely proportional to solar activity and
directly proportional to low cloudiness (cloud data from Palle-Bago
and Butler 2002)" which can be found in the lower half ofhttp://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf

--Mike Jr.

I should explain why I posted this.

The BBC recently updated the referenced news item which then came
across my RSS reader. I was shocked to see that the BBC hadn't taken
the opportunity to correct the total one sidedness of the piece.
Simply googling
=>Svensmark Lockwood reply
would have given the BBC ample reason to do so. The BBC should know
that the science reflected in the piece is no where near settled. The
BBC piece is propaganda, pure and simple. Shame.

AGW is not settled science; BTW, what is? All theories are subject to
revision as new evidence turns up. There are no sacred cows in
science. To take a closed minded position on AGW (one way or the
other) is to abandon science and embrace, what? Faith?

Have courage gentle readers and standup for science.

--Mike Jr.
Back to top
 
Page 1 of 1       All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:57 pm
Science Forum Index

Powered by phpBB & ML | Disclaimer



Contact Us