Skip to comments.Cosmic Rays Blamed For Global Warming
Posted on 02/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PST by blam
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.
Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.
In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.
Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.
He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.
The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.
Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.
He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.
"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.
"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."
Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.
A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.
They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.
Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."
Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.
Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.
He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.
"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."
Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".
Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.
Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."
But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.
Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.
He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds
Local wether evcents mean nothing in the global sphere of things. Simple thermodynamic principles (lol) tell us it's just a transfer of thermal energy.
"Rather, our instruments may be detecting more energy reaching them because the magnetic field of the Earth is deflecting less."
Yeah, and our magnetic field is also what effects the effect of the sun on Mars which is also experiencing global warming....
It's all about ME....
And intellect (my intellect) is GOD
So everything must be seen from my awareness timetable... the last twenty years... or better yet... The last 24 hour news cycle! The climate really changed TODAY!
And who is powerful enough to cause this change? Me... Us... We are! CASE CLOSED
Now it is time to kiss a monkey lady.
These scientists need to be disciplined, as well as the those behind the writing of this story!! Opposing views on global warming just cannot be tolerated! Unless, well, unless Bush is behind the cosmic rays,, that could work.
Ray is cosmic? LOL!
Science by consensus may kill us all some day but as sure as I'm sitting here Carbon won't.
Human-caused Global Warming has already destroyed all life on Mars? I had no idea it was that bad.
" I`d think the water level here around NYC would be a lot higher than it has been, "
Predictions are that the surf will be up tomorrow in the San Diego area: http://www.wunderground.com/US/CA/043.html
could someone define a cosmic ray
"A stream of ionizing radiation of extraterrestrial origin, consisting chiefly of protons, alpha particles, and other atomic nuclei but including some high-energy electrons, that enters the atmosphere, collides with atomic nuclei, and produces secondary radiation, principally pions, muons, electrons, and gamma rays."
That secondary radiation is what causes charges to form in the atmosphere which serve as nucleation sites for water droplets, and the increased cloud cover.
Stop global warming! Burn more hydrocarbons! Each molecule of octane burned puts out a little more water than carbon dioxide. And burning methane puts out twice as much water as carbon dioxide.
So, clearly the cooling effect of more clouds will offset the warming effect of the carbon dioxide.
I'll work out the details later. Got to get busy on my book.
The scientists putting forth this theory have been trying to get sober attention from the global warming crowd, but it appears that Al Gore's children's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' commands all the debate because it's a slick production whereas few in the mainstream media are lending their ear to climatologists and atmospheric experts from NASA-Jet Propulsion Labs and the Royal Academy of Sciences.
I thought the article said we had decreased cloud cover
No doubt the "It's our (mankind's) fault , send money and we'll study the problem and tell you how to fix it..." crowd will now claim the reduction in cosmic rays is due to all the man-made satellites in orbit getting in the way... ;-/
Now where is that Flash fellow?
As a friend of mine likes to say, particularly on days like today when there's 4 feet of snow on the ground and more coming all the time, "Where's that global warming they keep promising us?"
That's it, we're doomed. Dead and gone. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Doomed, doomed, doomed.
Global warming here tonight in the warm south of NE Alabama will be a "toasty" 22 degrees. It was a scorching 45 today, with 15 MPH winds. Nice little toasty wind chill factor.
Glo-Ball Warming! I knew it!
Indeed it does. Here, you can read it for yourself: http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
BFLR = Bump for later reading
I'll give it a shot. Cosmic rays aren't rays at all but highly charged particles consisting of ionized atoms. Which explains the ionization of the atmosphere, no? :-}
Not merely a "fault", but fascist conspiracy!
To support the Kyoto Protocol is to support a free ride for China and India.
Heretic! Heretic! Burn him! Burn him!
In other words, the upper atmosphere is a gigantic cloud chamber.
Or, a cloud chamber is a tiny version of the upper atmosphere.
The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report
Wonder where these folks have been, this "controversial" theory has been around in the news for at least a decade.
With the folks working at CERN working on it since 2001.
Continuing for at the foreseeable future funded out to 2010 with current results to be published this summer:
Hmm wonder it the author knows the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis":
The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory. The process of establishing a new scientific theory is necessarily a grueling one; new theories must survive an adverse gauntlet of skeptics who are experts in their particular area of science; the original theory may then need to be revised to satisfy those objections. The typical way in which new scientific ideas are debated are through refereed scientific journals, such as Nature and Scientific American.
And, who then is responsible for my Corn Chex going mushy in the milk this morning at breakfast?
Well I KNOW who: BUSH!
I disagree, I think it is because of Cosmic Bull Phobes..
Imaginary Photons that come from the sun..
The term "cosmic ray" was coined early in the 20th century, following the terms "cathode ray" and "x-ray" from the late 19th.
Not long after cosmic and cathode rays were discovered and named, it was found that they were really atomic or subatomic particles, as you mentioned.
The X-ray of course, was a real "ray", in the sense of being an electromagnetic wave. Until quantum mechanics came along to royally screw up that concept < }B^).
Can't believe it took 16 posts before a fantastic four reference came up.
I thought the article said we had decreased cloud cover
It does, and greater solar activity means less cosmic rays flux in the atmosphere. The solar magnetic field intensifies with activity shielding the earth from cosmic ray particles.
More active sun, fewer and less dense clouds in the sky.
Global Cloud cover
Solar activity is currently peaking out after decades of increase:
inducing the dominant portion of global climate changes we currently experience:
The interesting test will be on whether or not ocean and tropospheric temperatures drop as this 8000 year high in solar activity reverses as it is predicted for coming decades.
And may already be showing up in falling ocean temperatures since ~2003
Roentgen-ray duality. Has a certain ring to it, no? :-}
I'm going in the kitchen to make a hat now...
This idea has been around (and ignored) for some time.
Yes, we New Yorkers just KNOW it's global warming!
it was a joke
So you have notice the repubs anb big business have jump in bed with the dems on this co2 trading scam. Isn't ironic that the same countries that sell us oil can sell us carbon credits. Can you say "OPEC" of the CO2 Trading Nations. Us comsumers and tax payers can just bend over again and take like a man.
They need to run this by Al Gore and see what he thinks!
What are their secret identities?