I had the opportunity to talk with John at length during the Weather Channel 30th anniversary reunion which I attended (and live blogged) this past weekend in Atlanta (thanks so very much to all of you who helped with travel expenses, it was a true honor for me to be there.). John felt that this story is one that should be covered by every TV station in America, and I agreed. So, as John does, he leads and hopes others follow.
In the video he says this:
The idea that carbon dioxide produced by our fossil fuels threatens the planet Earth — that one seems to have pretty well failed the test of time.
Of course many on the other side of the AGW debate don’t want to accept that, but the fact is that some have come to their senses and climbed down, such as James Lovelock did recently.
This will be up on YouTube for maximum exposure at some point John assures me, until then, please visit the KUSI-TV website here to watch the video:
Here it is on YouTube, including the fix for the hurricane rotation:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
at last … it’s started.
🙂
Brick by brick, the edifice of CAGW crumbles…
Reminds me of Walter Cronkite.
Gold! Absolute gold!
Come on John. You must consider the ability of these rare events to be in any way related to the present trends. And it can’t just be wriggle matching. There must be enough energy present in these events to force a trend here on tera nova. And I just don’t see that it does.
I was really hoping it explained the theory more.
I think we need to get NPR and Nova to do a piece on this theory. HA! I’m sure they are already working on it. No doubt narrated by Al Gore.
This theory is the first time I’ve seen it stated that our solar system moves through the spiral arms of the Milky Way as if we’re on an independent path from all of the other matter that surrounds us. At the risk of exposing my ignorance, why does our solar system not share the same trajectory and consequently move in concert with all of the matter that is around us as we orbit the centre of the Milky Way from the same distance ?
I am not there yet. I don’t buy this. Seems like the time constant is correct and it is extraterrestrial so in that regard it is good.
You can learn more about it here,
The Cloud Mystery (53min)
Though it will not include his latest papers as this is a few years old.
Worth a peek.
Classy. Weather is cool again. Sea change. Into something rich and strange.
B.O.B.;
All stars do this. The spirals are not physically linked, like beads on chains, or composed of stars moving together. They are “illusions”, waves of concentration of stars and matter that circle the core. The solar system circles the galaxy about once every 250 million years; other stars at other distances from the center do it faster or slower. In the course of a circuit, the Sun moves in and out of many gaps and arms and other features.
“jimb from Canada says:
May 1, 2012 at 7:31 pm
I was really hoping it explained the theory more.”
I’m online at the moment from a location unsuited to watching video, though I am quite looking forward to watching it later (great to see cosmoclimatology getting some media coverage), but I can help give some links:
The following article by Dr. Svensmark provides a summary, including graphs of cloud cover correlation among a variety of other evidence for cosmic rays seeding clouds:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
If interested, also see sciencebits.com which is a site by Dr. Shaviv (where Dr. Svensmark and Dr. Shaviv are the two most famous scientists for cosmic ray theory although there are more involved), which includes this summary and intro:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Although not so much an explanation for new readers, a publication by Dr. Svensmark which includes an illustration of cosmic rays versus temperatures in recent history:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
Inspired by the above albeit different, a casual quick illustration I made of cosmic ray flux and temperature history over the bulk of the past 600 years, using Loethle temperature data and Dye 3 Be-10 data from Beer et al. 1994 (not so corrected for ocean variation but working for the basic idea):
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/319xq.jpg
(with references within the end of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ )
I was interested in cosmic ray theory soon after I heard of it long ago, because it seemed conceivable from the principle of cloud chambers (e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/cloud.html ), and, while the atmosphere is a much different situation than a simple cloud chamber, the above articles discuss some of the more solid support for the theory. There are even aspects like how you can find references to a ~ 135 million year climate cycle in old papers even before cosmoclimatology theory was developed.
Also, jimb from Canada, you could see http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/ if you have not already; I forgot that in the prior list of some links, although I would start with the very first link in my prior comment as that is where Dr. Svensmark essentially does a general intro and overview.
jimb from Canada:
Here is the mechanism:
http://cfa.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/CelestialDriver.pdf
The postulated causation sequence is therefore:
brighter sun -> enhanced thermal flux + solar wind -> muted CRF -> less low- level clouds -> less albedo -> warmer climate.
Diminished solar activity results in an opposite effect.
Source: Shaviv and Veizer 2003 ( who give due credit to Svensmark)
ABSTRACT
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate. Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. Both drivers are presently discussed in the context of daily to millennial variations, although they should also operate over geological time scales. Here we analyze the reconstructed seawater paleotemperature record for the Phanerozoic (past 545 m.y.), and compare it with the variable CRF reaching Earth and with the reconstructed partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 (p2). We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.
He must have borrowed material from Al Gore: check the video at 3:20 the hurricane is rotating the wrong way.
REPLY: Having been at KUSI and worked with John, that error likely originated with an editor. John doesn’t do the editing or graphics/b-roll insertion. I’m sure they’ll get it fixed now that it has been pointed out. – Anthony
Well done. Explain yourself in understandable terms and make no claims you do not have really good data to back yourself up with.
I thought that it was solar activity that modulated our exposure to GCR and hence the formation of cloud nuclei rather than our actual journey through the galaxy. A highly active sun equals less GCR and cloud formation, thus less solar radiation reflected and vice versa.
Pamela Gray:
Three minutes isn’t really enough time for John Coleman to cover the detail that you desire. Consider checking out from your local library Henrik Svensmark’s (the originator of the theory) book, The Chilling stars or purchase one at Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/The-Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate/dp/1840468157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335935272&sr=1-1. The subject has been covered here also, unfortunately I don’t know how to locate it. Maybe someone can help Pam out?
“Incoming Svalgaard”, I was going to comment, but the honourable professor done showed up while I was watching the video :/
What do you think of it Dr. S?
Leif, regarding the galaxy rotating the wrong way, it is probably just the strobe effect. just like wagon wheels appear to spin backwards on old western movies or airplane propellers seem to be turning very slowly on video reply.
😉
Svensmark shows cosmic rays cause nucleation of 3 micron SOx to the 50 micron SOx needed for cloud seeding, so fluctuations in cosmic rays control cloud cover. Just on problem, you need a source for the continiously precipitated SOx molecules. Earth has 4 PPM of Uranium and 7.8 PPM of Thoruim, roughly 2 million cubic miles of fissionable material. Particle bombardments control fission decay rates. Matter is neither created or destroyed, so every Uranium atom breaks down through a series of up to a dozen daughter reactions into lower order atoms. These new ‘elemental’ atoms occupy more volume in a high heat, high temperature environment and are forced into ‘elemental molcules’ and ‘elemental compounds’. Forming these ‘new’ molecules stores some of the fission geothermal heat. Forcing elemental Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen atoms into Hydrocarbons stores one million BTUs per cubic foot as petroleum. This is the source of the 97% of atmospheric CO2 along with the SOx, NHx., and a myrid of other compounds in sea floor vents and volcano emissions. That is the reason there is CH4 under every rock you frack, six times the proven reserves of CH4 stored in Methane Hydrates at the poles and ten times the proven reserves of Methane Calthrates on the ocean floor. Peak oil is a companion lie to Carbon climate forcing.
Some kinds of aerosols have very similar cloud seeding effects, particularly low level clouds, as GCRs.
Aerosol levels vary/have varied significantly from daily to century timescales.
Anthropogenic aerosol levels have always been much lower in the SH, and if SH and NH temperature trends are compared, they start a marked divergence around 1960. which I argue is mainly due to changes in NH aerosols – clean air acts, catalytic converters, etc.
Factoring in aerosol levels should improve GCR – cloud correlations.
Forgot the link
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif
REPLY: Having been at KUSI and worked with John, that error likely originated with an editor. John doesn’t do the editing or graphics/b-roll insertion. I’m sure they’ll get it fixed now that it has been pointed out. – Anthony
That’s a common error, people don’t realise if you look at it from the other side it spins the other way (wink)