"The rise in albedo derived by Pallé et al. (2009) from ISCCP satellite data and the Earthshine measurements over 1999–2006 is therefore consistent with this idea, given that mean cosmic ray flux recovered over this interval (following the long-term minimum shortly after the peak of the current grand solar maximum in 1985) (Lockwood & Fröhlich 2007, 2008). However, Pallé et al. (2009) found no change in albedo from the CERES satellite data."
Wel of toch niet?
"Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently published a superposed-epoch study reporting large (up to 7%) global cloud cover decreases, as detected by a number of satellites, following Forbush decreases in GCR fluxes. The difficulty with this kind of study is that there are very few large Forbush decreases when satellite cloud data are available, so results tend to be dominated by a single event. This possibility is increased because the authors reduce the set of events to those common to all the available satellite cloud datasets used. The cloud response peaks 7 days after the GCR decrease, which is a not an expected delay."
Wel, maar te weinig gegevens en onverwachtte vertraging.
Kristjánsson et al. (2008), the number of samples was increased by taking a lower threshold cosmic ray decrease to define events. In addition to cloud cover, they studied cloud droplet size, cloud water content and cloud optical depth—all from the MODIS satellite dataset. The satellite data were divided into six regions, all of which showed a negative correlation between GCR fluxes and both cloud droplet size and cloud optical depth, but only one of which was statistically significant. For cloud cover and liquid water path, the correlations with GCR were weaker, with large variations in the behaviours between the different regions. Correlation coefficients were improved when only the six largest events were included, with 16 of the set of 24 correlations (four for each geographical region) showing the sense expected by the hypothesis that GCRs help to seed clouds, but unlike the Svensmark et al. (2009) survey, correlations were not improved by introducing a lag. "
Meer gegevens + wolkendruppels en optische diepte niet significant maar voor de grootste GCR's wel grotere correlatie.
"Sloan & Wolfendale (2008) also found that the correlations had no statistical significance, and Erlykin et al. (2009b) divided clouds into two major types and still found that the data gave no support to the contention that there is a large-scale causative cosmic ray cloud correlation, even for the parts of the world where correlations have previously been reported. "
Deze studies tonen weer niets aan.
M.a.w. met weet het niet.
Wel of toch niet?
"Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently published a superposed-epoch study reporting large (up to 7%) global cloud cover decreases, as detected by a number of satellites, following Forbush decreases in GCR fluxes. The difficulty with this kind of study is that there are very few large Forbush decreases when satellite cloud data are available, so results tend to be dominated by a single event. This possibility is increased because the authors reduce the set of events to those common to all the available satellite cloud datasets used. The cloud response peaks 7 days after the GCR decrease, which is a not an expected delay."
Wel, maar te weinig gegevens en onverwachtte vertraging.
Kristjánsson et al. (2008), the number of samples was increased by taking a lower threshold cosmic ray decrease to define events. In addition to cloud cover, they studied cloud droplet size, cloud water content and cloud optical depth—all from the MODIS satellite dataset. The satellite data were divided into six regions, all of which showed a negative correlation between GCR fluxes and both cloud droplet size and cloud optical depth, but only one of which was statistically significant. For cloud cover and liquid water path, the correlations with GCR were weaker, with large variations in the behaviours between the different regions. Correlation coefficients were improved when only the six largest events were included, with 16 of the set of 24 correlations (four for each geographical region) showing the sense expected by the hypothesis that GCRs help to seed clouds, but unlike the Svensmark et al. (2009) survey, correlations were not improved by introducing a lag. "
Meer gegevens + wolkendruppels en optische diepte niet significant maar voor de grootste GCR's wel grotere correlatie.
"Sloan & Wolfendale (2008) also found that the correlations had no statistical significance, and Erlykin et al. (2009b) divided clouds into two major types and still found that the data gave no support to the contention that there is a large-scale causative cosmic ray cloud correlation, even for the parts of the world where correlations have previously been reported. "
Deze studies tonen weer niets aan.
M.a.w. met weet het niet.
Bericht laatst bijgewerkt: 24-02-2010 14:25
