Science & Technology News

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, cosmic rays can create clouds in the upper atmosphere. Nothing new there. Heck, it's the basis for some of our earliest particle detectors. It's a fact that has been known for decades -- damn near a century now.

If a nearby star when supernova we'd have a massive "cosmic" influence on our climate. But not even a nearby star going nova will have much impact on us.

But of course the question is how does this nebulous (mostly dismissed) 'cosmic ray forcing' compare to that known, succesfully measured and modeled forcing induced by the anthropogenically-introduced portion of the primary driver of global heating, green house gases?


Here are some (somewhat orthogonal) answers;

"...However, the second step is often glossed over by those espousing the GCR warming theory. Freshly nucleated particles must grow by approximately a factor of 100,000 in mass before they can effectively scatter solar radiation or be activated into a cloud droplet (Verheggen 2009). Pierce and Adams (2009) investigated this second step by using a a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics in order to evaluate the growth rate of aerosols from changes in cosmic ray flux, and found that they are far too small to play a significant role in cloud formation or climate change."

"In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change."

Numerous studies have also investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation (the third step). Kazil et al. (2006) found:

"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."

Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found:

"we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Kulmala et al. (2010) found

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

Laken et al. (2013) found

"there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds."

Krissansen-Totton & Davies (2013) found

"no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations"

In the CERN CLOUD experiments, Almeida et al. (2013) found

"ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols [that form clouds]"

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Let's keep all of that in context shall we.
3 days later it gained more than had melted.
It is still well above average for annual mass surface mass balance.

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/pola...N_20210813.png

Indeed, let's keep it all in context -- specifically the context of total mass lost.


Masse- og højdeændring: Polar Portal

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Let's keep all of that in context shall we.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/pola...N_20210813.png

Yes, lets ➥ Forsiden: Polar Portal

Originally Posted by Polar Portal

... Massive melting event in Greenland. While not as extreme as in 2019 in terms of gigatons (left image - but still would be enough to cover Florida with two inches of water), the area over which melting takes place (right image) is even a bit larger than two years ago...
... Unsuggestive behaviour of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Near-record surface mass balance (first image) despite near-record melting area (second image)...

[GordMay]

And:

Originally Posted by Greenland Mass and Height Change

... Based on this data, it can be seen that during the period 2003-2011 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 234 km3 of water per year, corresponding to an annual contribution to the mean increase in sea level of 0.65 mm

Here ➥ Mass and Height Change: Polar Portal

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

And:

Here ➥ Mass and Height Change: Polar Portal

My question is how do they measure .65mm ?

Now why is it that the most geologically stable tide Guage that I know of has shown a constant shallow straight line rise over the last 150 years ?

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=8518750

Or were we burning everything and driving huge fuel guzzling SUVs 150 years ago?
Not to say we shouldn't be more fuel efficient so 5he oil will be around for our use for a few centuries going forward.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

My question is how do they measure .65mm ?

Now why is it that the most geologically stable tide Guage that I know of has shown a constant shallow straight line rise over the last 150 years ?

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=8518750

Or were we burning everything and driving huge fuel guzzling SUVs 150 years ago?
Not to say we shouldn't be more fuel efficient so 5he oil will be around for our use for a few centuries going forward.

Guess you don't know many geologically stable tide gauges.

Absolute and relative sea-level rise in the New York City area by measurements from tide gauges and satellite global positioning system
Highlights

• NY City relative sea-level rate of rise is -2.851 to -4.076 mm/yr.
• NY City GNSS subsidence is -2.151 to -3.076 mm/yr.
• NY City absolute sea level rate of rise is 0.7 to 1.0 mm/yr.
• NY City relative sea-level acceleration is about +0.008 mm/yr²
• This is consistent with other tide gauges of East Coast of North America

[GordMay]

The global sea level [eustatic] is rising, has been rising, will continue to rise, and may accelerate it’s rising, with continued fossil fuel consumption.

The local coastal landmass areas of NY and NJ are sinking [subsidence], and will continue to sink, due to the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment [GIA].

Consequently, the relative local sea level [isostatic], at the battery tide gauge, in New York, has been rising, since the retreat of the NA glacier, and at a greater rate, than the global rise.

Both of these conditions will continue, until geological conditions change, to stop them, perhaps in millennia. But, so far, it simply has had little to do with AGW.


* Eustatic sea level changes are global sea level changes related to changes in the volume of water in the ocean. These can be due to changes in the volume of glacial ice on land, thermal expansion of the water, or to changes in the shape of the seafloor caused by plate tectonic processes.
Isostatic sea level changes are local changes, caused by subsidence, or uplift, of the crust, related either to changes in the amount of ice on the land, or to growth or erosion of mountains.


FWIW: Your pathetic attempt to pose "gotcha" rhetoricals only illustrates your ignorance, of these subjects.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The global sea level [eustatic] is rising, has been rising, will continue to rise, and may accelerate it’s rising, with continued fossil fuel consumption.

The local coastal landmass areas of NY and NJ are sinking [subsidence], and will continue to sink, due to the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment [GIA].

Consequently, the relative local sea level [isostatic], at the battery tide gauge, in New York, has been rising, since the retreat of the NA glacier, and at a greater rate, than the global rise.

Both of these conditions will continue, until geological conditions change, to stop them, perhaps in millennia. But, so far, it simply has had little to do with AGW.


* Eustatic sea level changes are global sea level changes related to changes in the volume of water in the ocean. These can be due to changes in the volume of glacial ice on land, thermal expansion of the water, or to changes in the shape of the seafloor caused by plate tectonic processes.
Isostatic sea level changes are local changes, caused by subsidence, or uplift, of the crust, related either to changes in the amount of ice on the land, or to growth or erosion of mountains.


FWIW: Your pathetic attempt to pose "gotcha" rhetoricals only illustrates your ignorance, of these subjects.

I will not expect the apology when I am proven correct in the big picture . We are headed into a cooling phase and have been since the early 2010's. .

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The global sea level [eustatic] is rising, has been rising, will continue to rise, and may accelerate it’s rising, withcontinued fossil fuel consumption.

The local coastal landmass areas of NY and NJ are sinking [subsidence], and will continue to sink, due to the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment [GIA].

Consequently, the relative local sea level [isostatic], at the battery tide gauge, in New York, has been rising, since the retreat of the NA glacier, and at a greater rate, than the global rise.

Both of these conditions will continue, until geological conditions change, to stop them, perhaps in millennia. But, so far, it simply has had little to do with AGW.


* Eustatic sea level changes are global sea level changes related to changes in the volume of water in the ocean. These can be due to changes in the volume of glacial ice on land, thermal expansion of the water, or to changes in the shape of the seafloor caused by plate tectonic processes.
Isostatic sea level changes are local changes, caused by subsidence, or uplift, of the crust, related either to changes in the amount of ice on the land, or to growth or erosion of mountains.


FWIW: Your pathetic attempt to pose "gotcha" rhetoricals only illustrates your ignorance, of these subjects.

Welll --- according to 'those in the know', if we were to eliminate all fossil fuel emissions tomorrow (despite alarmist claims of 'an impending ice age'), we're still due for a couple hundred years of GHG-induced warming, and hence, sea level rise. The efforts now are only to reduce and hopefully eliminate the majority of fossil fuel usage; a result of 32 years of criminal misdirection by those with vested interests (and those who've been hoodwinked into believing their lies) means that a certain amount of warming is 'baked in', and that whatever reductions or eliminations we make now are specifically directed at limiting the severity of the effects of that 'baked in' warming on Earth's future inhabitants.

All of them, including the humans responsible...


Your definition of 'isostatic' brings to mind the latest 'theory' regarding the real cause of sea level rise; that the accumulation of life on earth, and the constant slow reintroduction of life's remains into the mantle by tectonic processes is what's actually 'heating things up' and which is what's 'really' responsible for both the warming atmosphere and the 'malleability' of the earth's surface, which 'really' explains isostatic adjustment and the increased incidence of earthquakes and volcanoes.


Haven't heard of it yet? I imagine not, being as I just made it up...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Haven't heard of it yet? I imagine not, being as I just made it up...

I gotta better one. This is the theory that is mine.

-ahem-

Here is my theory. I will now give my theory.

-hem, hem -

Sea rise is due to overpopulation. It's not really sea rise; the weight of all those people pushes the land down.

That is the theory that is mine. Thenk yew.

[jimbunyard]

So do you call it 'obesiatic induction'? Certainly explains the wetlands losses around here...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

So do you call it 'obesiatic induction'? Certainly explains the wetlands losses around here...

No that is just run of the mill normal solar minimum multi year la Nina. Caused by the deep solar minimum we have been experiencing for the last several years .

Ask NASA and NOAA

[Hydro]

Maybe posted already didn’t find under formenergy though.
New type of battery, may replace lithium at less then half the cost. Iron-air type battery, might be some years away.

https://formenergy.com/technology/battery-technology/

Here is a simple explanation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UDjgSSO98VI

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I will not expect the apology when I am proven correct in the big picture . We are headed into a cooling phase and have been since the early 2010's. .

I've asked before, but I'll ask again.

Would you give us a specific signal that we are to look for, and by what specific date, that will prove you correct?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I've asked before, but I'll ask again.

Would you give us a specific signal that we are to look for, and by what specific date, that will prove you correct?

Nothing exact like that but you will see interesting stuff in the next 2 to 4 years . However this winter should be a bit colder than average if the southern winter is any indication ( and it usually is)