Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming

Posted by timothy on from the but-millions-of-illuminaria-do dept.

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."

4 of 656 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Say it with me... by philspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correlation is not causa... wait... huh?

    Anyway I think the fortune cookie logic here is, as usual, misapplied.

    FTA

    This result is in line with most other research in the field. As far as Kristjansson knows, no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.

    They're not saying "A happens with B, therefore A causes B." They're saying "A does not happen with B."

    I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se. Didn't read if there was a possibility of a non-correlating causation, or maybe if I did, I don't have enough of a background in atmospheric science to realize it.

  2. Re:Common Sense by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There will still be cold winters and warm summers no matter whether the mean global temperature is rising or falling. The variation from year to year swamps the slow, gradual rise in temperatures.

    Think of the stock market. After one or two days of going up, we don't suddenly say the bear market is over. Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  3. Re:Global Warming Heretics by leereyno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't understand what motivates you to lie and construct straw man arguments. Is intellectual honesty and integrity so difficult?

    A disbelief in anthropogenic planetary warming is not an implied argument for the destruction of the environment.

    "Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?"

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  4. Re:So? by dwguenther · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you read the NOAA data description and papers, you will find that the adjustments are due to carefully documented re-calibrations of the standard gases used as references by the measurement instruments. More importantly, if you look at the difference graph linked in your comment, you will note that the typical correction is 0.2ppm and the largest correct is about 0.7ppm. This is insignificant compared to the 50ppm increase over the last 30 years at Mauna Loa. It begs the question; why are you (and others in this thread) ranting so violently against a simple measurement? What possible benefit could NOAA scientists gain over your lives? The politicization of science here is making no sense...