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."

11 of 656 comments (clear)

  1. Common Sense by COMON$ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone knows global warming is caused by His Noodliness hugging the earth even closer.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. Realization by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know I think if Global Warming is any indication, science is going to get even more politicized in the near future. People will use science, or rather manipulated and partial data and false pretenses which they will call science, to push agendas and line their pockets. Before anyone calls me a shill for whatever organization they hate most and mods me down let me make clear that I'm not pointing at the vast majority of scientists who are doing honest work using the scientific method. I am pointing at both parties who have politicized this issue for their own gain.

    The thing that bugs me is that the public at large doesn't the read journals and papers on the latest scientific findings, instead they listen the political figure heads and corporations and news reporters, all of which have an agenda to push. I think what I'm beginning to realize is that science is ultimately going to suffer from this nonsense. I don't think it will matter if the results are peer-reviewed anymore, I think the public won't trust them anyway.

    Anyone have any thoughts on this?

  4. And that is why hell froze over by alfrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Las Vegas gets record snow fall

  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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...