Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Say Cosmic Rays May Cause Global Warming
Saint Aardvark writes "Researchers in Israel and Germany suggest that variations in cosmic radiation as the sun orbits the galactic core may be responsible for changes in the Earth's climate -- including more than half of the change in the 20th century. A PDF of their article is available from GSA Today or read the abstract for their Physical Review Letters article."
I just don't cosmic ray variation would account for more than half of the 20th century's climatic change. The variation just wouldn't be that great given the fact that the solar system simply hasn't moved very far in 100 years.
I'm just waiting for the antiscience republicans to jump on this. "See? Here's a study that says that cosmic rays cause climate change. Not greenhouse gases! See we were right to censor the EPA's report that global warming was primarly caused through human activity. Now let's continue with our report on how nicotine is not addictive, and creation science in our schools".
Save the planet. Recycle an environmentalist.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It's this kind of fascist "global warming" (if it exists) "*must* be caused by evil American corporations and consumers and I will not listen to anything that suggests otherwise" kind of thinking that has really turned me against environmentalists. That closed minded "I am right and you are wrong and we'll do this my way or I'll have you shot" attitude tells me more about the weakness of their arguement than anything else. If Global Warming truly is occuring and is caused by man, then how can researching all angles of this issue (including solar influences) be bad? It can't. That's why these envirowhackos want to shout down everyone that may disagree with them. Thay don't want *any* proof that hurts their "cause."
And that, my friends, is Fascism.
BC
"I really wish these researchers would stop trying to distract the world from the real problem and maybe put their brains to good use-- say finding a solution to the problem at hand. Cosmic rays, blah. The fact of the matter is we have four billion people on the earth that breathe, fart and drive cars that put out enough noxious gas to kill you in you in a closed garage in mere minutes. "
Um. Can't stop the problem if you don't understand the nature of it. So finding out if it is 'cosmic rays' or not will be more beneficial than finding a cure for flatulence.
"Derp de derp."
You are dismissing their research out of hand based on skimming a brief news report but it's the Republicans that are anti-science.
This just contributes to the realization that we really don't know a whole hell of a lot about how the climate on earth functions. There is no way in hell we can say for sure what the cause of global warming is or if it even matters (in the grand scheme of things, since temperature cycles have been occuring for billions of years). This of course doesn't excuse civilization from being held accountable for our affects on the climate, but people and politicians (not sure they're really people) really should stop having such narrow points of view.
"Cosmic rays [...] increase the number of charged particles in our atmosphere. There is some evidence that these may encourage low-level clouds to form, which cool the Earth."
First they take an unproven theory, that high-charged particles create low-level clouds, then they put another theory on top of it, that the fluctuations in high-charged particle concentrations, and the (unproven) low-level clouding, and that ALWAYS results in climatic cooling.
To construct this theory three techniques were used: "temperature, as inferred from ancient sediment records, carbon dioxide, as inferred from fossilized sea shells and cosmic rays, as inferred from meteorites."
"All three techniques are open to interpretation. Plus, geologists consider one of the 'cool' periods in the mathematical reconstruction to be a warm period, Olsen points out."
Cosmic rays resulting in a cloudier earth would be a far more appropriate Tag-line for the Article - since the mathematical model of temperature is at least in one part highly doubtful. Ah yeah and I won't even comment on the lurid slashdot headline which inspired all the trolls here.
Even if some of the global warming taking place today can be blamed on cosmic rays (or better the absence of them), so what? Should we just close our eyes, telling ourselves "hey its fate. its cosmic. I am just a puny earthling and I can do nothing about it." and lay waste to our planet with a clean conscience? hell, why not blame Canada?
Yes we do live in a complex environment. Blaming just one parameter for the fucked up outcome, although it probably didn't change much in the last billion years or so and not taking into account the new parameters (read: human influence) sounds pretty stupid to me.
So yes, I do think these theories are pretty interesting, the more of the process we understand the better, but they shouldn't be used as an excuse to act stupid or ruthless.
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
We're not even 100% certain there is a global warming problem. There are geological records that indicates the Earth regularly goes through not only major ice ages and warmer periods, but also mini ice ages and warm periods as the global temperature oscillates. As it happens, we're in the middle of a warm period... Remember our weather data only goes back 100 years of so, plus some anecdotal evidence...
Cosmic Rays or not, we know that carbon monoxide is destroying the ozone
You really might look these things up first. Carbon monoxide is partially responsible for smog. But please show me some reference to a peer reviewed study of carbon monoxide's role in the depletion of stratospheric ozone. Perhaps you were thinking of chlorine monoxide a biproduct of CFC/ozone reactions.
which is contributing.
Contributing to what? Skin cancer? Now, I think you must have been referring to the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Regardless of if Cosmic Rays are a contributing factor, it's very hard to argue that reducing CFC's, cutting down on emissions (or changing fuel types), moving to cleaner fuel sources for power (such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro), and in general making sustainability part of our core values wouldn't extremely slow the problem.
If you would lose the "extremely" then your argument would be more effective. Consider that if the problem is mostly due to cosmic ray fluxes or variances in solar power, then all those remedies which you have listed would be of little consequence.
That said, the study of if cosmic rays effect global warming or not strikes me as pointless. It's not exactly a problem we can address. It seems that, true or not, it will end up just being a scapegoat.
Sigh... You ignorant clod. You clearly mean well, but your clear lack of education and poor rhetorical style only diminish your cause. Frankly the environmental movement would be much better served without your help. Go get an education or something.