It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Earth's Climate and of course the Sun

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
My occupation required me to know a little about weather and certainly different clouds. I always was under the assumption that clouds were formed by temperature differences and moisture content in the atmosphere.. which is only partly true if this research is correct..

The following video shows the correlation between cosmic rays, the sun, and clouds... Cloud cover equals shade and cooler temps below the clouds, which hopefully no one can refute who has ever gone outside...

Hats off to this research as far as I am concerned now we are getting someplace with the whole global warming discussion... Bottom line is do not ignore the sun and cosmic rays..

youtu.be...




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Cern have been looking into this with their CLOUD projects. Although not complete I believe the response was "minor effects" what they did show was:


biogenic vapours emitted by trees and oxidised in the atmosphere have a significant impact on the formation of clouds, thus helping to cool the planet.


home.cern...

I don't think they have conducted experiments looking at the effects of magnetosphere strength or solar winds. I think there was some suggestion that cosmic rays may have played a greater role in cloud formation pre-industrial revolution. Why this is so is beyond my understanding, it's not my field of expertise.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

It is true, that when there are more sun spots and solar flares they cause cosmic rays to be diverted from hitting the earth and other planets. When that happens temperatures rise not just on earth but all the planets. When there are less sun spots and solar flares cosmic rays hit the earth and cause high altitude clouds to be formed using evaporated water from lower atmosphere.

When those gaseous clouds are hit with the UV from the sun they create Ozone. As the Ozone cools it coverts to water and hydrogen peroxide As these break down more it rains with just minute parts of hydrogen peroxide and ozone still in the rain water.

This helps animals and man stay healthier but the memory markers in water vapor has been bombarded with all sorts of disease and pollutant markers that water no longer has it healing properties as it did even a few hundred years ago.

The earth is the only planet with this perfect thermodynamic system. When men try and create clouds they are artificially messing with the perfect system it is supposed to be.


edit on 2-7-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

This was first published almost 20 years ago but ignored by most scientists even 10 years later when Svensmark wrote his paper ‘Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges’ and after this documentary.
His research doesn't get a lot of credit by the mainstream, sadly.

I've known about this hypothesis for a while now and to me it makes perfect sense, that is if the data is correct.
I believe this could be the biggest factor for the cause of climate change, but not the sole.
Though I would put the sun as the number one climate driver above all other possible causes without hesitation, especially above co2.

So why isn't this being reported and accepted?

The whole global warming hysteria would turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of mankind,
co2 never had much of a deal when it comes to climate change drivers,
a possible global war against governments,...?
but the one that's probably the most concerning for the future of life on this planet is that the earth will soon enter a new little ice age maybe even a full ice age that could continue for thousands of years.
Both the Sun and Earth magnetic field strength is weakening, this would mean more cosmic rays so more cloud cover that would cool the earth.

Yes we are contributing to climate change but to what extend? Pretty sure it's insignificant on a geological timescale.
I find it hard to believe that humans and their 200 years industrial revolution can change a natural cosmic cycle that has been going on for millions of years.

I've said this numerous times but I'll say it again. It's the Sun folks, was is and will be


just to add if you want to read Svensmark paper from 2007 HERE is the link.

Also
A list of 2017 papers linking climate change to solar activity



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Cosmic rays and solar activity are possibly related too. I have no doubt that the sun is connected to everything and reacts also to the cosmic rays. The guy in the video is right, but maybe his reasoning is still askew. He is proving an effect but not the exact mechanism of action. I give him credit because he is searching and will eventually figure it out. The present CO2 dreamers won't accept what he says. They are the ones that are wrong. The thing is both the atmosphere chemistry and outside effects are involved. That means that we need to understand this better so we can actually understand how to adjust the atmosphere if needed. The present climate warming scam is a scam. Sure there is something to us taking care of our world, but they are blaming it on mostly CO2 which is a joke,.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

You would think the planet would be affected by changes in solar output and also by the magnetosphere solar winds etc but none of this appears in climate models, is this why their models are so inaccurate? We have a deep and secret disgust for modellers in our organisation. Not the people but the profession. I was with another science nerd at a presentation a modeller was giving and he actually said this "we asked the model where the best place to take data was to verify the model" thinking it was a clever way of using the model. My colleague and I shoved our heads in our hands in disbelief.

We asked him why he didn't ask the model the best place to collect data to disprove the model and he had no idea what why you would do that. This guy was earning $200k a year modelling ocean currents for pollution. Low and behold 8 years later there was a mass kelp die off because the model was essentially wrong.

:/



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Charlyboy

My argument against all the models has always been there is incomplete data. Even though some want to pontificate they know everything there is to know about Earth's climate for their current model's input ... They are incorrect IMO... I was unfamiliar with the video's research but the way he tied it all in was impressive for my way of thinking...



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=22419454]727Sky[/post

What was we used to say about models and the data they generated??

Oh yeah "sh1t in sh1t out"....

You can tell we were intellectuals :/



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: rickymouse

You would think the planet would be affected by changes in solar output and also by the magnetosphere solar winds etc but none of this appears in climate models, is this why their models are so inaccurate? We have a deep and secret disgust for modellers in our organisation. Not the people but the profession. I was with another science nerd at a presentation a modeller was giving and he actually said this "we asked the model where the best place to take data was to verify the model" thinking it was a clever way of using the model. My colleague and I shoved our heads in our hands in disbelief.

We asked him why he didn't ask the model the best place to collect data to disprove the model and he had no idea what why you would do that. This guy was earning $200k a year modelling ocean currents for pollution. Low and behold 8 years later there was a mass kelp die off because the model was essentially wrong.

:/


The parameters of the research often make the research useless. If you focus only what you believe is relevant than that is all you will see. A good researcher or scientist will state that it appears there is something here and it needs further investigation. Real science does not give definite results except as related to parameters. It seems there are people who use science to make us believe we should give them more money. I can see that if it is justified, if there is a correlation that needs to be clarified and is necessary to understand. The whole global warming/climate change is something that has been hijacked by people to gain power and money. Yes it is relevant, we do need to watch what we are doing, but we cannot just look at one thing and ignore others.

No matter if global warming is a scam, we need to stop wasting our resources and stop polluting our environment including the air. Forest fires released a lot of carbon into the atmosphere all along, lightning strikes probably wiped out all sorts of forests in the past. But the new forests tied up the carbon again.

Humans can destroy the ecosystem, we have enough technology to do it. This includes machinery and chemicals. If we just focus on carbon and the atmosphere, then we are fools. Even that microscopic plastic winding up in the lakes and ocean is a problem. The thing about all that microscopic plastic is that what creates it is not something we need at all, our wants and desires are what causes it to be there. It is in women's face cream and in our clothes and it does not need to be there.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Unfortunately I am all too aware of science being hijacked.



I never understood why we pollute so much, surely we should've an innate desire to protect the very environment we live in? Oh yeah thats right money......





posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
No doubt the OP is correct from my research and pov. Sooner than later we will all be looking to space to predict our weather here on Earth. The Sun, where we are in the cosmos, and other factors in space contribute to weather changes as well as climate changes here on Earth. Check out my signature for the research we did, pretty interesting stuff.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: rickymouse

Unfortunately I am all too aware of science being hijacked.



I never understood why we pollute so much, surely we should've an innate desire to protect the very environment we live in? Oh yeah thats right money......




The thing is they are trying to say a guy sitting around a campfire, cooking his dinner and having a beer is poluting more than the person who is in the rat race, flying to a cruise ship for his/her vacation. They say the jets are efficient now, fly all you want, but don't start that campfire and burn scrap wood that fell during a storm.

It takes about a pound of coal to heat a gallon of water in an electric water heater. That info came from some power company site I looked at one time. Now, I am no rocket scientist, but a pound of wood would easily heat a gallon of water to boiling over a small fire too.

I will never feel guilty for having a campfire in my firepit. When we sit around the fire, there is less electricity being used, we are not driving to town or a restaurant, we are not flying around the world. We are not evil individuals, we probably are causing less carbon release than those who are not.

You cannot just focus on carbon emmisions, you need to focus on total impact of what you do. I am sure it would be negative if my campfire started a forest fire, but we do not have campfires when it is dry out anyway.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

Saying the cosmos doesn't affect planetary bodies is like saying the environment doesn't affect a being's health or the things you put into your body changes it's chemistry.
It is true we know too little about our climate and solar activity(space weather) too put all our stakes on it. But to deny it would be a major error.

I'll check out your link, does it by any chance have a connection with a theory on waves/clouds coming from the galactic core each x time period? I remember vaguely a docu about these waves affecting planetary climate?



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

There are some interesting presentations on the EIKE( European Climate and Energy Institute) youtube channel.
Also some more recent talks from Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv on the cloud/cosmic ray research.
(They all have German titles but not all are spoken in German)
www.youtube.com...

You are right, there are a lot of unknown parameters that they just don't account for or are even not aware of.
Trying to model a chaotic system seems a pretty impossible task, no?

I really wonder how many lives have saved by putting billions of dollars into AGW(or could have been saved by using the it for more effective projects?)


edit on 3-7-2017 by intergalactic fire because: link



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join