Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: kymhorsell@gmail.com Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,sci.environment Subject: charged particles and clouds Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:15:45 +1100 Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) Message-ID: Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:15:45 +1100 Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com; logging-data="96906"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com" Cancel-Lock: sha1:bmP0RoQcvU9fuqZTVd9OskoAn4U= sha256:+t55y+K8/t5SZZT4WDpmZtzG8qQicy8H/bdIMygtIbQ= sha1:VrgphP8EAtr4/vesF/29W71K6p0= sha256:d9RhlYDPmaigf2xmO0ngMdxq9XEfO2s10DAb7UVjFLI= Bytes: 12623 Lines: 266 (This is me here: kaggle.com/kymhorsell1). The history of what charged particles do to the earth's climate is somewhat fraught and amusing at the same time. 50y ago climate deniers on WUWT & elsewhere used cosmic rays and solar radiation (some but not total overlap between these 2 things ;) to "explain" why the earth's global warming -- responsible for keeping the planet 30C warmer than it would be for its distance from the sun -- was caused by "sunspots" and particle radiation from the sun. (There is no scientific argument from the point of view that the sun's light radiation warms the earth). While cloud chambers obviously are a thing -- they are the traditional instrument used to find charged-particle radiation because protons and electrons whizzing through a chamber with air set to condense actually DOES condense small water particles around them, leaving a visible trail in the chamber -- it was speculated that they should also have an observable effect on the earth's climate via cloud formation. It was then a matter whether the clouds formed would be "high" -- which tend to bounce more heat radiation coming up from the earth back down to the earth thereby creating more GW -- or "low", which tends to bounce light from the sun back out to space thereby cooling the earth. So which was it? CERN set up a big experiment to verify what was what one way or the other. The results I saw published argued along the lines for being a very small and not significant effect whichever way it was. And the subject seemed to be closed. But we have the data. So we should look at it ourselves. I worked at one point for some Russian Academy on a project setting up a global cosmic ray telescope. My end of the deal was doing some of the data processing, not designing cosmic ray telescopes and setting them up in Greenland or Uzbekistan, or wherever. But as usual part of the fee was to get their database to play with at some later point. That point has never really come up in the past 20+ years. But maybe now is the time. :) We can ask an AI-boosted stats package to check whether there is a robust relationship between cosmic rays and changes in the earth's climate, and if so what they are. It should be pointed out first up that cosmic ray telescopes don't actually detect cosmic rays as a rule. They detect "secondary radiation" that comes down from the upper atm after extremely high cosmic ray particles -- usually bits of small atoms -- come charging into the upper atm and mightily smack one or other of the air molecules up there. So there's some ambiguity usually whether what is being see on the ground is from the sun or the wider universe. It's generally accepted that really high energy cosmic particles come from way out there, possibly left over from some super event, maybe even been travelling toward us since the start of the universe itself. (There are some super high energy particles that move so fast time has virtually stood still for them since just after the Big Bang). So I have divided the Russian data -- 100s of different stations around the world since the 1970s -- into some time series based on monthly averages, and compare that with data for global temperature and e.g. cloud formation (for which I have some sat data left over from another job). And the net result is this: Cosmic ray Temp Params R2 cosmic-wtlat glb 12o2 0.33778916 cosmic-LARC glb 1o2 0.13584963 cosmic-CLMX glb 1o2-x 0.13457051 cosmicseg-60 glb 6o2 0.13331150 cosmic70lng120 glb 6o2-x 0.13193978 cosmic-THAI glb 12o2 0.13128931 cosmicseg120 glb 6o2-x 0.13096583 cosmicseg150 glb 6o2 0.12558309 cosmic30lng-110 glb 1o2-x 0.12406043 cosmic-IRKT glb 6o2-x 0.12270517 The first column is the "X" used in a robust time series regr (ARMA(1,1) with bells and whistles). The 2nd is the global temp ("Y") data-file -- in this case NASA's surface temp going back to the 1850s in 1/100th deg C. The "params" column tells me what mucking around the AI did to get the result its posting. And the "R2" shows what fraction of the monthly ups and downs of the Y are "explained" by matching ups and downs of the "X". All results are tested 2 different ways and check out 95% or better to be not just lucky data. We see the best model found is the "cosmic-wtlat". This is an invention of my own. Using the value of cosmic radiation at a given station we calculate a "weighted average latitude" over all the stations. This very very very roughly gives the direction relative to earth where the big source of cosmic rays was for each given month. Sounds spurious, but turns out this is the best measure to predict 1/3 of all those little ups and downs in global temps. While the trend has been steadily up for the past 150+ years according to the NASA data-set (or 2000 years according to 100s of data-sets maintained by the PAGES2k group; and 100s of 1000s of years according to groups that use tree rings, shellfish, ice cores and lake sediments as temperature proxies) maybe 1/3 of all the little jags up and down we see in the "glb" plots seem to relate to cosmic rays. But more importantly. What is the "sign" of the change? Given this is an "average latitude" is the earth slightly warmer if the big source of cosmic rays that month is in the NH sky or is it bigger if the source is in the SH sky? Here's the model: y = -2.038454e+00*x + 9.096947e+01 beta in -2.03845 +- 0.236692 (90% CI) alpha in 90.9695 +- 1.86585 T-test: P(beta<0) = 1.000000 Rank test: calculated Spearman corr = -0.860809 Crit val = 0.432 2-sided at 1%; reject H0:not_connected r2 = 0.33778916 I.e. we are 99% sure in 2 different ways (we might like to think of that as 1 chance in 1000 or even maybe 1 chance in 10,000) this is not just down to luck. There is a link. So it seems the sign is -ve. The further NORTH the big source of cosmic rays is this month the COOLER will be the earth to the tune of ..02 deg of temp for each deg of latitude further north. The data-set for wtlat shows it varies erratically N and S of the equator from month to month and has no statistically robust trend. If we look at the station that seems to predict global temps best we find this: Cosmic data Temp Params R2 Beta stderr(Beta) cosmic-LARC glb 1o2 0.13584963 -0.0117559 +- 0.0024414 I.e. the station "LARC" (in Antarctica) seems to find about 14% of variations in global temp are down to cosmic rays detected down there. For a month with e.g. 100 more events per sec average for the month global temps go down .012 deg. (Remember, the "glb" temps are in 1/100th deg C). So there is some evidence we can find that more "cosmic rays" (i.e. charged ions that come down from the upper atm for some reason -- many probably connected with increased solar activity) hit the detector in Antarctica, the earth temporarily cools a little -- as if more low clouds were formed and booted some of the incoming solar light back out to space before it could hit the earth or ocean and warm things up. The footnotes show some relevant other reading. -- From cosmic rays to clouds -- CERN CERN, 10 Oct 2019 The CLOUD experiment studies how ions produced by high-energy particles called cosmic rays affect aerosol particles, clouds and the climate. ... CLOUD -- CERN Kirkby went on to say in the definitive CERN press Release "Ion-enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid-troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. -- wiki Scientists find evidence cosmic rays influence Earth's climate Besides atmospheric temperature and the amount of water vapour in the air, cosmic rays beaming down through space also contribute towards cloud formation. -- www.downtoearth.org.in Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing Nature Scientific Reports, 11 Oct 2021 Atmospheric ionization produced by cosmic rays has been suspected to influence aerosols and clouds, but its actual importance has been questioned. What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change? skepticalscience.com, 17 Nov 2019 While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic ... On 5 Nov 1965 climate scientists summarized the risks associated with rising carbon pollution in a report for Lyndon Baines Johnson [...] [PCAST warned the president the accumulation of CO2 would "almost certainly cause significant changes" to the environment]. Based on projected world energy requirements, the United Nations Dept of Economic and Social Affairs (1956) has estimated an amount of fossil fuel combustion by the year 2000 that with our assumed partitions would give about a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2, compared to the amount ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========