Slashdot Mirror


Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming

flock2000 writes "A new study conducted by Norweigan researchers finds (again) that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. Previously, other researchers have claimed to have found a link between cosmic rays and surface temperatures."

8 of 656 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So? by BlackSabbath · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

    To quote from the linked article:
    "The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

    But hey, why let facts get in the way of a complete fabrication?

  2. Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky? by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Given that the change in global mean temperature is 0.7 degrees Celsius, 30% of that is about 0.2 degrees Celsius. That leaves about 70% or about 0.5 degrees Celsius due to anthropogenic global warming.

    Science never proves anything. Science can either refute or support a hypothesis. No one has been able to successfully refute the hypothesis of manmade global warming. On the contrary, there's lots of evidence to support it.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  3. Re:Common Sense by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of your post sounds like a nonsensical rant. You do have one question that I can answer. You're asking why the sea levels are not rising, even though the glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising, around 1.7 mm per year for the past century. This rise is due to both melting glaciers and the expansion of oceans as they warm. Sea levels may rise about another meter during this century. One meter may not sound like much, but that amount of rise could flood many urban coastal areas.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  4. Re:So? by asynchronous13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

    Needs citation.
    Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
    Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
    Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
    Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
    Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
    Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
    Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

    Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

    Talk about inconvenient...

    Indeed.

  5. Re:Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sort the average global temperatures for any decade and there'll be a hottest and a coldest. But being the coldest year in the hottest decade doesn't mean it's getting colder.

  6. Re:Common Sense by immcintosh · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is you seem to be avoiding the simple point that global temperatures HAVE been rising. I'm sorry, but it's a recorded fact. The problem is you're setting up the classic straw man this argument alaways suffers from, namely, confusing the fact of a global rise in temperature with the theory of what is causing it or whether it is outside the realm of natural cycle.

    All models are wrong, but some are useful.

    That quote leaves out the fact that they're also necessary. The models may be bad, but until we get better ones we have to work with the ones we have now.

    it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational. Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.

    Actually, the currently scientific thinking is more complex than either side really wants to talk about. Historically, there is very strong evidence to suggest that large changes in Earth's temperature are actually caused by slight changes in its orbit. But, that being said, those changes can't account for the increase in CO2 by themselves. Generally, the thinking goes that the changes in orbit trigger a small initial change, which triggers CO2 buildup and temperature change in a feedback loop. In other words, current understanding of the evidence doesn't provide strong support for either side of this debate. (search around if you want to find evidence supporting this explanation--it's easy to find)

    So, I would say you got right, one sorta right, and one dangerously wrong.

    Is global climate change a concern? YES!
    Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Indisputably. If you don't like the temperature fact, try the size of the ice cover over the north pole.
    Is it the fault of humanity? Conclusively, we can't really say until it's all over of course. Currently accepted science, however, suggests it is.

    And a fourth that nobody ever seems to ask:

    If it's not the fault of humanity, is it a historically precedented change, or is there some other causal factor we aren't aware of?

  7. Re:Common Sense by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rather than demanding simplistic answers that fit their politcs, scientists put error bars on things that are uncertain such as clouds. Clouds are not ignored they are simply not well understood, the affect of cosmic rays on clouds is even LESS well understood and like the Hadley center, I fail to see how a lack of an observable trend in cosmic rays results in an observable trend in clouds. Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.

    Mis-informative would be a better tag for your post, if the evidence was based soley on extrapolation of tempratures then you might have cause to dissmiss it as speculation. As it stands your post is just another lame political troll using the same tired old arguments that have been debunked to death.

    BTW: The phrase "climate change" was coined by SKEPTICS in the early 90's, they pointed out that the term "global warming" implied a certain conclusion - both terms are literally correct.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  8. Re:But carbon emissions have gone up every year by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, the other variable is the ever-changing weather. Global warming is a long-term trend in addition to the continuing short-term warming and cooling trends. Winters are cold. Summers are warm. El Nino and La Nina cause temperature variations also. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the only cause of changing temperatures, and no one ever said it was.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.