Slashdot Mirror
Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
Overly Critical Guy writes "The former editor of New Scientist has written an article in the TimesOnline suggesting that cosmic rays may affect global climate. The author criticizes the UN's recent global warming report, noting several underreported trends it doesn't account for, such as increasing sea-ice in the Southern Ocean. He describes an experiment by Henrik Svensmark showing a relation between atmospheric cloudiness and atomic particles coming in from exploded stars. In the basement of the Danish National Space Center in 2005, Svensmark's team showed that electrons from cosmic rays caused cloud condensation. Svensmark's scenario apparently predicts several unexplained temperature trends from the warmer trend of the 20th century to the temporary drop in the 1970s, attributed to changes in the sun's magnetic field affecting the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere."
Also, pretty much summed up in a recent Mark Steyn commentary.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Cosmic rays are basically high energy nuclei, which include essentially all of the elements in the periodic table; about 89% of the nuclei are hydrogen (protons), 10% helium, and about 1% heavier elements. They are accelerated to between 40% and 99% of the Speed of light, or between 100Million electron Volts to 10GeV, this must leave some sort of chemical or isotopic signature on things like organic molecules in ice cores.
Sort of like the carbon14/12 ratio which is used to date formerly living things.
If the Cosmic Ray flux has changed substantially over a few thousand year period, there should be some way to test for it's effects.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
I may have read it wrong, but I don't think his theory accounts for every bit of the temperature change.
You mad
I think most of the global warming crowd conveniently forget that by far the biggest determinant of Earth's climate is this object about 150 million kilometers from us called the Sun.
If you look at our sunspot cycle (which has been recorded since the 1600's), it should be noted that Earth warms up every time we have many sunspots and cools down when we have few sunspots. The famous Maunder minimum that bridged the 17th and 18th Centuries with very little sunspot activity resulted in seriously cold winters at the higher latitudes, as noted by the Thames River through London freezing over in winter regularly during this period.
But getting back on topic, scientists have noted that almost every planet in our Solar System is experiencing a warmup during the last 4-5 years. Note that the Martian ice caps are getting smaller and smaller, the atmospheres on our "gas giant" planets are warming up quite a bit, and even Pluto's surface is experiencing warming. That tells us either the Sun is generating a lot of unusual radiation or our Solar System is going through an area of our Milky Way galaxy with higher than normal cosmic radiation.
Apparently he doesn't need to. At least he thinks so, as long as the consensus is with him.
Since science doesn't operate by consensus, any "consensus" is irrelevant. Brutal facts are simple. There is labortory evidence that the excess CO2 we have been putting into the atmosphere "ought" to affect the climate. The empirical data doesn't support this. The hockey stick curve is an artifact of data analysis and dependent upon data sets that are not correlated with temperature anyway. There is a clear chemical signature but the predicted climatic signal is largely missing. Between 1950 and 2000 the empirical data indicates that the amount of light reaching the ground decreased immensely; more than enough to explain the missing CO2 signal. Now the Danes have shown an alternative source of climatic effects in the incidence of cosmic rays, mediated by solar weather.
The short conclusion is, we have NO CLUE how the climate really works, nor do we know the full list of inputs that drive it nor their relative importance. Nor is there any convincing -i.e. not overly simplified- model of how our own inputs affect climate. It may well be that CO2 warming is all that is keeping us from a particulate driven cooling and ice age.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
No reputible sources are disputing global warming and that humans are the cause.
RTFA. From the article:
After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005. In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Those 5 sentences say soooo much that so many people would like to ignore. 1) That there is a very major factor involved in cloud formation that, if anything, the IPCC is paying less attention to. 2) That the "peer reviewed" journals are indeed rejecting valid research that contradicts the herd mentality of human-induced global warming. 3) Contrary to what some people would like to believe, not all real scientists agree with the IPCC version of global warming. 4) These three things combined really DO undermine a heck of a lot of what the IPCC and their ilk is campaigning behind.
There may be a correlation, but that doesn't mean that there's a cause-effect relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. I've seen it argued that due to things like the 800 year lag, it's unlikely, at least for the first 800 years of the cycle, that CO2 *causes* the temperature increase, and in fact in previous cycles it's probably been the other way around. One theory I read was that with increased temperature the oceans lose their ability to trap CO2 so it gets released into the atmosphere. (Note that the first link I gave above explains why high CO2 levels may still be a problem despite this). Anyway, all I wanted to say was that the relationship is no doubt many times more complex than Al Gore and some other alarmists would have you believe. P.S. I think it's worth pointing out that I'm not a supporter of big-oil or corporate interests or anything like that. I'm only interested in having the full story told. Regardless of the debate I'm still doing everything in my power to reduce my personal contribution to CO2 emissions because I'd rather not take any chances with this planet that we call home. I'd love for it to still be able to support a diversity of life for many years into the future.
There is really no need for accusations about funding and so on. Just answer some simple questions:
1) Why is East Antarctica cooling?
2) Why has air temperature apparently stabilized?
3) What caused the Medieval Warm Period?
4) What caused the mini Ice Age of the 1700s?
5) Why in the historical record do temperatures rise before CO2 rises?
And that's not even getting into the Holocene....
Well, maybe there is a simple explanation that results in it remaining plausible that the modern warm period is different from the Medieval being due wholly or mainly to CO2 emissions since what, 1850 or so, and not due to whatever caused the Medieval, and will not be followed by whatever caused the Mini Ice Age.
No, it can only be stopped by our ceasing to emit CO2. Like they suddenly did in 1400...?
Well, if there is a simple explanation along these lines, it would be very interesting to see someone write it down.
The Copernican model didn't offer very good astronomical predictions compared to the most sophisticated Ptolemaic models. When Galileo saw Venus go through complete phases (full -> new -> full), it pretty much convinced anyone conversant in astronomy that geocentrism was wrong. Why? Because in a geocentric system Venus can't go through all the phases; only half the phases depending on whether it's inside or outside the Sun's orbit.
Still, Ptolemaic models with their fancy epicycles within epicycles within epicycles gave better results. It wasn't until Kepler came along and put the planets on elliptical paths that the Ptolemaic models were finally thrown out.
Was this meant to be an explanation of what exactly caused the Medieval Warm Period? And what caused the Mini Ice Age? And what the contribution of man-made CO2 was in either case? And why the East Antarctic is cooling? And why air temperatures seem to have stabilised? Not to mention what the Wegman report showed about the statistical inadequacies of the Hockey Stick?
Telling everyone to shut up and listen to their betters is not going to make this stuff go away.
History seems to be repeating itself. Galileo was essentially required to put a sticker on his book's cover saying that "heliocentrism is just a theory; one among many and needs to be considered critically because of this"...
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
"The measurements are not accurate..."
Agreed, and that is why NASA should drop the "man on Mars" crap and refocus on our own biosphere.
"...enough --- that is one reason why global warming proponents have to *declare* that the debate is decided, rather than let the evidence speak for itself."
This is a totally assinine assumption on your part, "not accurate" != "not usefull".
As for "evidence speaking for itself" please refer to figure SPM-2(PDF warning) in the 2007 IPCC SPM.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes, that is exactly the scenario the parent suggested.
Evilviper: "IF Co2 is only responsible for 10% of global warming"
$uperJay: "If global warming was reduced by 10%,"
In order to get 10% out of 10%, that means a 100% reduction in CO2. You understand (or you may not, seeing your political inclination) this just a hypothetical, of course. Even in less extreme examples, you have exactly the same problems.
I suggest you keep your speculation to yourself, as you have no idea what my political inclinations are...
I could just as easily speculate that you are very simple minded, and just swallow whatever political tripe you are offered by Green Peace, and in your world there exists no possibility of rational debate of an issue, and any dissent must be silenced, or written off as idiocy.
20% is quite a big expense, doesn't scale up, and all for a very small change in the level of atmospheric CO2. It's also potentially quite dangerous to sequester CO2. Should it ever leak, it could suffocate anyone in the vicinity. Potentially a huge number of people killed, even dozens of miles away (if they're downhill from the leak).
And, if you aren't very careful about it, you end up with a 20% tax on power plants, while other (quite numerous) CO2 emitters that aren't forced to cut back, effectively get a 20% subsidy, and you encourage investment in other CO2 emitters that are harder to contain.
Now THAT'S a REAL straw man!
Congratulations.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If global warming was reduced by 10%, the increase in climate stability would pay off.
What, so if we do this and invest trillions of dollars, there will be no more major hurricanes? Like last year you mean? Ooops.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I agree. Scientists are the only ones who should be allowed to comment. Because scientists are never wrong, never 'shade' their information to fit a conclusion, and never EVER have political biases themselves.
- Adolf Eichmann.
-Styopa
In my heart, I really hope this global warming stuff isn't due to human activity. As someone who drove a Dodge SuperBee back in the late 70's, I'd hate to think I contributed to such a global catastrophe. But from a practical standpoint, it makes some sense that more than a century of toxic emissions might cause some problems on the planet. Drive I-80 East past Gary, Ind and tell me you don't think human activity can mess up the environment. Do it without holding your nose for full effect.
And those of you who like to throw Galileo's name around in support of your agenda, just remember, NOT EVERYONE IS CONVINCED.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I've been asking that same question for some time. In the NOVA documentary about this it appeared that the diameter of the magnetic ring at the poles was increasing. The photos seemed to look just like the ozone hole. I wish I could get two similar photos and overlay them.
There is also plenty of history in the fossil record to determine what happened during the past magnetic flips, but I have not read anything about what happened to the climate at those times.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
However: increased CO2 levels also cause temperature increases. There is a positive feedback mechanism at work.
The basic idea is that some effect causes a temperature increase, which in turn causes CO2 levels to increase, but those increased CO2 levels force the warming to continue where it otherwise would have leveled out. This warming/CO2/warming cycle continues until you hit other negative feedbacks which stop the warming.
Actually, the linked article is fairly good for Real Climate. They do the usual dance of trying to demonstrate that anyone who doesn't want to throw all SUVs into the ocean can't be a real scientist (while villifying anyone who works on studying the Sun), but they do cover well the VAST gulf between this theory and a practical resolution to the warming trend of the last century. This work in no way ANSWERS any questions.
It does shed some light on some areas of uncertainty, and that's a good thing. I quote Real Climate, "Svensmark's paper itself is indeed of some interest. Aerosol processes are among the most uncertain, and most studied, aspects of climate and these experiments might be useful in adding to that field." I'd agree, and I look forward to more work in that area... assuming that these researchers aren't denied funding on the basis of having become "too controvercial", which is the typical fate of anyone who brings the "consensus" into question....
Still, if you limit the data to the 20th century, then the graphs are not in sync. Most of the warming was in the early part of the century followed by that cooling period from about 46-75ish, and then some warming again after that. Also, there seems to be a pause in the warming since 2000 where AGT hasn't done much other than fluctuate a bit. Also, the deep ocean data doesn't seem to fit with the models either. None of the recent work of the Argosy project was included in the report. That's another reason why I'm still not convinced.
Also, this article, and the work behind it, which I heard about back in October, has experimental proof of how their cloud formation works. Solar intensity is increasing, and has increased over the last few decades, as we've been able to confirm directly with the satellites. The Solar theory has enough merit to question the CO2 theory in my mind; at least for a few more years.
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
You've got to be the 500th person to link to RealClimate. Is RealClimate the Jesus of global warming or something?
All RealClimate did was claim that the cloud condensation "building blocks" weren't necessarily large enough and that further research was required. That's hard to do when nobody will publish your work and all the alarmist climatologists are getting the funding because they've latched onto the "greenhouse gases" trend where all the political donors are.
"Sufferin' succotash."
From the article:
"The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999."
Ice in a glass of water will cause the water to stabilize right around the freezing point. Even if you slowly heat it, the temperature will remain around freezing...that is until the last of the ice melts.
It's logical to think that the same is happening in the oceans. The ice is helping keep the oceans at a fairly constant temperature and the oceans are absorbing the extra heat from the atmosphere.
The problem is that it looks like the oceans' ice is melting at an alarming rate.
Those are nifty numbers but what with the trend to send manufacturing to China I'm not believing them. Where did you get them?
Having seen rivers of bubbling black sludge in southern China where there is a large concentration of manufacturing, I tend to mis believe any numeric references without citation.
The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2042, an increase of 50 percent that will require 43 years. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html
Human population growth is the real culprit and nations seem unwilling to accept that. Nations have too much at stake economically and politically. Nope, must be the boogey man of technology. And the US is, at the moment, at the head of that pack. So, the US is the "beast".
Calls for "carbon footprint" taxes, if enacted, ought to include a tax on EVERY human head. Rich and poor alike. They are ALL contributing to the unsustainable human population growth, overuse of resources, and ultimately the destruction of the environment.