The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change
The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change – Review
This is a equally fascinating well written book about a third main model of climate change. So far there were two main theories. The first one is global warming due to increase in CO2 concentration resulting from industrialization. This theory is well presented in The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth . For an apocalyptic version translate An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It . The second model of climate change is that the major drivers are: 1) decadal oscillations in ocean temperatures, and 2) solar irradiation. This theory is well presented by Joseph D’Aleo’s paper “US Temperature and Climate Factors since 1895.” Svensmark originally developed a third theory. Climate change is due to galactic cosmic rays produced from distant eventually exploding stars that trigger the shape of small clouds. Cosmic rays produce muons (elementary particles) that trigger the seeding of clouds by forming cloud condensation nuclei, on which water droplets form. Those small clouds have an umbrella cooling effect over our climate. The Sun has a wildly fluctuating magnetic shield that partially protects against such rays. When the Sun is active and its magnetic shield is strong, the stream of cosmic rays is greatly reduced, the small cloud contain diminishes and temperatures rise. Svensmark easily duplicated this biological process in a lab experiment described Sky. The CERN in Geneva is actively engaged in autonomously replicating this experiment on a larger scale. Fifty top scientists from various disciplines from 17 countries are actively involved. Thus, outside the politicized IPCC the technical community needs Svensmark theory seriously. The influx of cosmic rays depend on: 1) The land of the Sun. When it is active it has more dark sunspots; 2) Where we are in the Galaxy. During our galactic orbiting, we get nearer to areas with heavy strength of eventually exploding stars with more cosmic rays. Then, our climate becomes into a “icehouse” mode. As we move away from such zones, we enter into a “hothouse” mode. During the past 500 million years, we have experienced four switches from hothouse to icehouse mode. The real series of the Earth’s climate from hothouse to icehouse periods as eventually captured by environmental records add completely with the cosmic rays cycle. Nir Shaviv, a scientist from Israel, estimated that the cosmic-ray flux from our extensive journey are ten times larger than the variations due to stellar activity; and 3) The Sun’s vertical motion as it rises and plunges like a dolphin above or below through the flat horizontal disc of the Galaxy where the cosmic rays are most intense locally. This movement is four times more frequent than the ones previously mentioned above from icehouse to hothouse. It is the cosmic emission of intermediate energy that affect the variation in small cloud formation and resulting climate change. A graph on page 77 shows a close match between variation in cosmic rays and variation in minimal level clouds. Low clouds account for sixty per cents of the cloud cooling effect. Overall, clouds cut the warming result of the incoming sunshine by eight per cents If clouds did not exist the planet would be 10 degrees Celsius warmer. This theory has a portion of advisory power. On page 25, Svensmark shares a notable graph that discloses the record of our climate for the past 12,000 years. For each period, the graph illustrates the land of the Sun, the resulting intensity of cosmic rays, and the resulting climate (following the exact fundamental link as originally described at purpose of third paragraph). Svensmark theory develops robust as it is supported by the convergent findings from many special sciences possibly including physics, paleontology, geology, biology and astronomy. This theory can explain a group of things that CO2 can’t. For instance, temperature trends in Antarctica are opposite vs the place of the World. This is because Antarctica with its ice contain is the brightest spot on Earth. It reflects further solar heat than anywhere else. There, small clouds do retain quite more solar heat than the Antarctica’s surface. And, the clouds come some of this heat downward. This is contrary to all other Earth’s surfaces. Antarctica sea-ice greatly increased by eight per cents between 1978 and 2005 contrary to CO2 global warming expectation. The Antarctica anomaly is correctly predicted by Svensmark theory. Also, the Earth warmed from 1900 to 1945. Then, it cooled in the 60s and 70s only to warm up again in the 80s and later. CO2 concentration can’t explain this up and down pattern at all. Svensmark theory can, as each cycle was matched by a subsequent change in power of the Sun and cosmic rays. As previously mentioned earlier, this theory describes the four shifts from hothouse to icehouse over the past 500 million years. Meanwhile, CO2 concentration can only vaguely explain two of them. Shaviv from his study of long term records, figured that in the past a doubling in CO2 concentration would result in only a 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature. This is far lower than the IPCC estimate range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. Shaviv did extensive long term studies and commonly found out that the long period of 1 to 2 billion years before the present during which no glaciations are none to have occurred, coincides with a paucity in the past star formation rate and resulting cosmic rays. Predicting international temperature is challenging. Using Svensmark theory, it would involve exactly predicting the Sun magnetic shield intensity which is not reliable yet. Svensmark adds that correctly predicting international temperatures currently using any framework (including CO2 global warming) is highly unreliable so far. Svensmark advocates scientists find away from dogmatic narrow technical specializations and embrace multi-discipline research framework. He states that we clearly defined exact borders (let’s say between biology and chemistry) without regards to how nature works. He advocates the origin of a modern science described cosmoclimatology usually defined as “a different area of research examines celestial events that affect the global climate, on all time scales from fractions of a second to billions of years…” This would be a multi-disciplinary science possibly including chemistry, astronomy, geology and extra life sciences.