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."

Comments

Re:cult of global warming

[letxa2000]

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.

~Accurate != ~Usefull

[TapeCutter]

"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.