[STEM] Two Studies and Henrik Svensmark versus man-made Climate Change 2019-08-07

In June and July two very interesting studies about manmade climate change from Finland and Japan appeared. Both deal with the often neglected influence of cloud formation on the climate. According to the Finnish results the influence of cloud formation on the climate is many times greater than any other factor. And according to the Japanese results the formation of clouds depends essentially on the changes in the magnetic field of the earth and the solar radiation and can thus be theoretically predicted.

The studies therefore conclude that the climate is mainly influenced by changes in the Earth's magnetic field and as a result cloud formation. Thus the studies undermine that prevailing narrative about man-made climate change. Both studies should not be ignored.
  1. The Finnish Results
  2. The Japanese Results
  3. What is Neglected
  4. Conclusion

The Finnish Results

The Finnish study deals with the influence of cloud formation on the climate. The results of the Finnish study show how the local temperatures develop inversely proportional to the cloud cover and that the cloud cover depends on the effective solar radiation. According to that a dense cloud cover reflects solar radiation and thus heat influx. The Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has presented corresponding results in the past several times. [1] [2] [3]
This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era. [6]
Furthermore the theory of man-made and carbon dioxide (CO2) based climate change is strongly criticized. This interpretation was greatly overestimated while the influence of the clouds was greatly underestimated. According to this the influence of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) plays only a very small role.
If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. [4,p.5]

During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C. [4,p.5]

Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. [4,p.6]
In the Finnish study the global temperature variance and the cloud coverage between summer 1983 and summer 2008 were plotted over time. Here however, the cloud cover follows the temperature and not the other way round. This is in direct contradiction to the conclusion and results of Svensmark. Where this contradiction comes from is open. [4,p.3]
The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognise that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice, write Kauppinen and Malmi. [4,p.5]

The Japanese Results

The Japanese study deals with the influence of magnetic field changes on cloud formation. The results show how changes in the magnetic field influence the formation of clouds and thus the climate. After that a weaker magnetic field amplifies the effect of cosmic and solar radiation on the earth. And through the cosmic and solar radiation particles increasingly penetrate into the atmosphere of the earth where the humidity of the air collects and forms clouds. [7] [6]

The condensation of humidity in the air and cloud formation by particles in the earth's atmosphere has also been studied by Svensmark. In process technology this effect is used for example for the purification of gases. And in laboratory experiments this effect could be observed with corresponding particles in an artificial atmosphere. [1] [2] [3]

For this purpose sediment layers from the Gobi desert and the East Asian monsoon were investigated which moves every year from Siberia to the south via China. And according to these studies the particles found in the sediment layers correlate with the cloud formation of the East Asian monsoon. The Japanese study also strongly criticizes the theory of manmade and carbon dioxide (CO2) based climate change. [7] [6]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it. [6]

What is Neglected

Much has been neglected in the climate change debate. The current fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere is about 400 ppm (0.04% volume fraction). The historical fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere is controversial, but the assumption that it was about 280 ppm (0.028% volume fraction) (about 1880) is common. In addition to man-made there are also natural emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) such as seas as the solubility of gases in liquids is inversely proportional to the temperature. The man-made share is even more controversial.

The external factors on the climate of the earth are completely neglected. The earth is heated by the sun a fusion reactor that is thousands of times heavier and bigger in size than the earth whose activity is not constant but is described by the Gleißberg cycles. Since the sun is a fusion reactor any experimental setup in which the sun is simulated by a candle, lamp or else is useless because the emission spectrums are different. In addition the distance between the Earth and the Sun is not constant but is described by the Milankovic cycles. Both are not considered in the two studies although the influence of the sun is of central importance in them.

And a presumed scientific consensus of 97% does not change these uncertainties and disturbances. Because science is not a democracy but the search for the truth and not the opinion of the majority. These uncertainties and disturbances in the debate should either be taken serious or be invalidated but should in any case be addressed.

Conclusion

Both studies and Svensmark's previous findings are already calling the prevailing narrative of man-made climate change into question. Even if one is not ready to give up the assumption of manmade climate change one should not ignore the findings.

At the same time both studies draw criticism because they were not peer reviewed. However this should deny neither the central theses that have been published by Svensmark their attention. At least Svensmark's findings have been proven and already question the ruling narrative of man-made climate change.

[1] Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges 2007-02-01
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765
[2] Strong Evidence That Svensmark’s Solar-Cosmic Ray Theory Of Climate Is Correct 2015-09-21
https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensmark-s-solar-cosmic-ray-theory-of-climate-is-correct/
[3] Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei 2017-12-19
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
[4] J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALM - NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE 2019-06-29
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
[5] J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI - MAJOR FEEDBACK FACTORS AND EFFECTS OF THE CLOUD COVER AND THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON THE CLIMATE 2018-12-30
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.11547
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.11547.pdf
[6] Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal - Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate 2019-07-03
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm
[7] Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition 2019-06-28
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Kommentare