Study Reveals Extreme Climate Change Happened 14,000-36,000 Years Ago.

Originally posted by MicheleLee
Those that have not watched "An Inconvenient Truth", may I suggest you consider watching it.

Its a propaganda video, a video designed to provoke a reaction and get people to think a certain way.

It would be FAR better if people started looking at the scientific reports on global warming and climate. Its a complex issue that requires the public be informed. We'd be FAR better off if everyone that watched Gore's movie had read some scientific papers on global climate.

royal76
that hit a shelf just hard enough to keep a current of water

Its not actually speed that is causing a 'downward deflection' or anything like that.
The current is actually driven by differences in density, which in this case are dependant on salinity and temperature, it is called "thermo-haline circulation'.

grover
Well then I think sarcasm is more than called for.

Its pointless. ANd look, its created a distraction already. Lets focus on the facts, not one another. Lets not engage in a propaganda struggle with one another, lets simply look at the facts, and discuss one another's interpretation of the facts and how we arrive at our conclusions based on those facts.

I have seen An Inconvenient Truth and read the companion book and it is very well put together and reasoned and far from propaganda. Not to mention it references its sources and, the book especially provides a considerable amount of backup data. Again hardly propaganda. It is not pompous, nor does it insult its viewer/reader but is a clear dissertation of the known facts...stress...THE KNOWN FACTS. Again hardly propaganda.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by grover]

Oh Okay, so we should be expecting a carbon tax or something to help pay for the "global warming war" within the next few years? Something along those lines right?

I will definately look at the other side much deeper.

Originally posted by Nygdan

False, the current change can not be linked to any known climate cycle pattern, nor explained by any known driver of climate, other than atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

With just a bit of research let me show you how wrong you are.

Sun more active than for a millennium

The Sun is more active now than it has been for a millennium. The realisation, which comes from a reconstruction of sunspots stretching back 1150 years, comes just as the Sun has thrown a tantrum. Over the last week, giant plumes of have material burst out from our star's surface and streamed into space, causing geomagnetic storms on Earth.

www.newscientist.com...

That means that the last time the sun was just as active was in 853 A.D.

Any idea what happened in that time period?

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm climate in Europe from about 850 until 1250 AD. The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.

www.windows.ucar.edu...=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html

Now, lets see what else is happening now that is affecting Climate Change on Earth.

Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
John Roach
for National Geographic News

May 11, 2006
Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.
............
The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.
............
But the field might not always be in steady decline, according to a new study appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science. The data show that field strength was relatively stable between 1590 and 1840.

"It now looks as though it happens in steps rather than just one continuous fall," said David Gubbins, an earth scientist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom.

Records and Math

The magnetic field protects Earth from cosmic radiation. In its absence, scientists say, Earth would be subjected to more electrical storms that disrupt power grids and satellite communications (sun storm photos).

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Conclusions
A review of research on past temperatures and variations led us to the following conclusions:

1.) Climate is in continual flux: the average annual temperature is usually either rising or falling and the temperature is never static for a long period of time.

2.) Observed climatic changes occurred over widespread areas, probably on the global scale.

3.) Climate changes must be judged against the natural climatic variability that occurs on a comparable time scale. The Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and similar events are part of this natural variability. These events correspond to global changes of 1-2oC.

4.) Global temperatures appear to be rising, irrespective of any human influence, as Earth continues to emerge from the Little Ice Age. If the temperature increase during the past 130 years reflects recovery from the Little Ice Age, it is not unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable with that of the Medieval Warm Period about 800 years ago. The Holocene Epoch, as a whole, has been a remarkably stable period with few extremes of either rising or falling temperatures, as were common during Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods. Nevertheless, the Holocene has been, and still is, a time of fluctuating climate.

5.) Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.

www.azgs.state.az.us...

What does seem apparent is that within the current interglacial period, starting some 10,000 years ago, there have been smaller patterns emerging – periods of warmer weather, followed by colder weather and so on. These have been broken down by climatologists into four main periods.

The first followed the end of the last Ice Age, indeed it caused it to end. The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

This period has acquired the name the Optimum period as a result, and was followed by a much colder spell. This more or less coincided with the historical period called the Iron Age, which reached its coldest around 2,500 years ago. (It should be remembered that these changes are gradual and do not occur overnight).

www.bbc.co.uk...

Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures. However, what's significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino.
......................
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Here is a link with information on the cycles of warming and cooling the Earth ahs gone through.
www.stanford.edu...

Another link with some information on these cycles.

large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's

13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.

12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.

11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).

11,500 - 10,500 y.a. - climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.

9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's

about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.

8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today's.

(but; at 5,900 y.a. - a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the 'elm decline').

Since about 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present

2,600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas

(but; 1,400 y.a. [536-538 A.D.] wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).

(Followed by 'Little Ice Age' about 700-200 ya)

www.esd.ornl.gov...

Some more information on how "environmentalists" are ignoring data because it fits their agenda.

The models which have been used to forecast global warming due to
man made emissions of carbon dioxide have ignored the astronomic theory
until very recently and still ignore the radiation theory. This is despite the
fact that the statistical fits of the astronomic and radiation theories are
extremely good and lead to accurate forecasts, whereas the models
backcast historical climate very poorly, forecast no better and are not
statistically verified.
The models assume that carbon dioxide leads and temperature follows. Data
from ice and deep sea cores show the reverse. They suggest that the role of
carbon dioxide is to amplify the effects of the astronomic variables and solar
radiation. There has never been a historical period where CO2 rose
independently of natural drivers, such as variations in solar radiance and
astronomical cycles, which could provide an analogy for the modern period. It
is impossible to sort out from history the independent role of CO2 as too
many other things were going on at the same time, such as changes in the
water and methane content of the atmosphere, the quantity of energy
emitted from the sun and changes in the earth's orbit. It now seems clear
from the evidence of the past 100 years, and spectral calculations, that the
model builders' estimates of CO2 sensitivity are about four times too high.
This means that any changes in temperature due to anthropogenic CO2 will be
at most 0.5 degrees C over the next 100 years, a figure well within the range
of the Little Optimum warming of 900 to 1300 AD, a period of flourishing
agricultural civilizations.

www.thecis.ca...=%22less%20than%20a%20decade.%20In%20Greenland%2C%20air%20temperatures%20warmed%20by% 20about%20fifteen%20degrees%20centigrade%22

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
That means that the last time the sun was just as active was in at 853 A.D.

Meaningless, the current warming trend does not track with sun activity.

Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.

This is clearly not the same thing as saying that the warming trend is man made. No one is saying that global warming is creating greater temperatures than have ever existed before, or anything at all like that.

4.) Global temperatures appear to be rising, irrespective of any human influence, as Earth continues to emerge from the Little Ice Age. it is not unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable with that of the Medieval Warm Period about 800 years ago

Well which is it, is the MWP the result of purely sunspot activity, or is it the 'norm' for the holocene and we are just moving to the norm? You just said that its all about sunspots, how can we be recovering from the little ice age when there were decreases in sunspot activity?

www.bbc.co.uk...
The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago.

And what does that have to do with the warming trend that is tracking industrial release of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere?

www.nasa.gov...
Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

Many people criticised some temperature records because the stations were inside cities, where the large amount of heat trapping concrete and asphalt might've been giving a false record of global warming, when all you had was the modernization and very localised warming in the cities.

This page you cite is saying, no, that is not the cause of the warming, it is a global event, you can remove the 'heat island effect' of cities, and there is still a distrubing increase in temperature that tracks with global co2 emissions.

Here is a link with information on the cycles of warming and cooling the Earth ahs gone through.

Yes, the earth has gone through climate cycles. There are many drivers of global climate, such as the eccentricity, obliquity, and tilt of the earth. These astronomical drivers of climate change on milankovitch scale cycles. They DO NOT explain the current warming trend.


Astronomical forcing does not explain the current long term warming trend. Sunspot activity does not explain the current long term warming trend. Recovery from ice ages does not explain the current long term warming trends. THe patterns DO NO match, there is something ELSE causing the warming trend, and it 'just happens' to coincide with a man-made increase in atmospheric concentrations of heat trapping gases.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Meaningless, the current warming trend does not track with sun activity.

Meaningless? why because "you say so"?...

You claimed there was no such trend, i showed you to be wrong and excerpted several sources which prove the contrary to your claim.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well which is it, is the MWP the result of purely sunspot activity, or is it the 'norm' for the holocene and we are just moving to the norm? You just said that its all about sunspots, how can we be recovering from the little ice age when there were decreases in sunspot activity?

Could you even think what would be the reason for me quoting another research which proves the Earth's magnetic field is weakening now more than it had done in 800,000 years?.....

Yes, there are several factors...and one of them is the Earth's magnetic field which shields us from solar storms and space radiation has been weakening since 1840, after a period that it was stable...Around that time is when there was again an increase in temperatures on Earth.



But i guess that's "meaningless" also according to you?....

Originally posted by Nygdan
Astronomical forcing does not explain the current long term warming trend. Sunspot activity does not explain the current long term warming trend. Recovery from ice ages does not explain the current long term warming trends. THe patterns DO NO match, there is something ELSE causing the warming trend, and it 'just happens' to coincide with a man-made increase in atmospheric concentrations of heat trapping gases.

Well sorry to tell you you have been proven wrong by several sources, and the thing is that not only Earth is going through this "warming period" as i have shown before. In fact this is happening in the entire solar system, which is another little fact which some people want to ignore.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

In fact this is happening in the entire solar system, which is another little fact which some people want to ignore.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Muaddib]

We are aware of that,
But after thousnads of years of toxins and pollutants added into the atmosphere, what ever 'cycle' we are about to experience again, isnt going to be like the previous.

If you dont believe in global warming, fine...

but when it really goes bad, and i end up floating past you in a rubbber dingy, ill ask you then if you still think its bs

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

But after thousnads of years of toxins and pollutants added into the atmosphere, what ever 'cycle' we are about to experience again, isnt going to be like the previous.

If you dont believe in global warming, fine...

but when it really goes bad, and i end up floating past you in a rubbber dingy, ill ask you then if you still think its bs

Thousands of years?.... that I know of the industrial revolution started around 250 years ago or so... and during the time that coal, the energy source which happens to be the highest producer of greenhouse gases than any other energy source, was being burned like there was no tomorrow, during WWII, there was actually a cooling trend on Earth...

And BTW.... who said "i don't believe in global warming"... although the term itself has been misused.

The difference is that there is a lot of data and scientists who have discovered that mankind is not affecting Climate change as much as "a mayority of environmentalists" would like people to believe....

There is data to prove that there are natural causes which coincide with the fluctuation of temperatures on Earth, and have nothing to do with mankind's activity.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

There is data to prove that there are natural causes which coincide with the fluctuation of temperatures on Earth, and have nothing to do with mankind's activity.

Yes, that is true. Except for the past 50 years. And for that there is no natural explanation. According to the experts anyway (I know those who don't fully understand atmospheric science and astrophysics sometimes claim otherwise on their websites )

Besides which, how can you chop down half a rain forest and not expect to it have an impact on regional climate? You halve the transpiration, you halve the available moisture you halve the cloud cover and the subsequent rainfall .... Anthropogenic climate change in action - and no CO2 involved. There are other ways we're impacting on regional climates as well, over and above any impact due to carbon emissions. Unfortanately many of those arguing on both sides ignore the wider picture (which is why the likes of Greenpeace don;t speak out about the rain forests so much these days - they're too fixated on carbon emissions).

btw Gore's film was propaganda. Catastrophists do the cause of persuading people that climate change is real and down to us no good by misinterpreting or misrepresenting evidence (the infamous Upsala glacier, for example). In many ways they're no better than the deniers.

Hang it up Muaddib knows everything and is never wrong... only he has the FACTS and anyone who disputes with him is an idiot. I bet he is insufferable drunk.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
Hang it up Muaddib knows everything and is never wrong... only he has the FACTS and anyone who disputes with him is an idiot. I bet he is insufferable drunk.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by grover]

we all have our ignorant side.

Not to be a jerk or anything but why would the oceans rise so much if all the ice floating in it melted? I mean, when ice cubes melt im my glass there isnt suddenly more water. The Earth is finite in size so displacement should be applicable in the oceans like any other vessel. The biggest effect of losing these floating masses of ice is that they would mix in with the sea water and we would be out a certain amount of fresh water.

Or is the majority of ice sitting on land somewhere and not in or on top of the oceans?

the vast majority of ice is tied up in places like Antarctic and Greenland and other glaicers worldwide with floating ice making up a far smaller amount of global ice. Visually this is easy to prove, simply look at the size of Antarctica and Greenland and the arctic islands of Canada vs the ares of floating ice at both poles... the frozen land masses are far larger. Also the Ice cap on Greenland is a mile deep, and while I am not sure of the exact measurment of the ice cap of Antarctica I am sure it is similar.

Originally posted by grover
Hang it up Muaddib knows everything and is never wrong... only he has the FACTS and anyone who disputes with him is an idiot. I bet he is insufferable drunk.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by grover]

Wow...that really does it.... Gorver proved that the data and links i excerpted are wrong with the above statement...

It reminds me of someone else who uses similar tactics...

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program “The Climate Code,” is advocating that the American Meteorological Society revoke their “Seal of Approval” for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
..............
Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming.

Cullen's call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced, over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC's summary for policymakers.

timblair.net...

Meanwhile there is data that contradicts the alarmists who claim they know for certain it is mankind who is the mayor cause for global warming...

I wonder why the alarmists are so concerned that they want to stop any data which contradicts their position?.....



[edit on 26-1-2007 by Muaddib]

YAWN! it always comes down to the same old thing... we have a choice... believe the majority of the scientific opinion or the rantings of a blow hard in Wyoming....decisions decisions.

I wasn't trying to prove something... I was pointing out the obvious.

How much does EXXON pay you to broadcast your propaganda?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You claimed there was no such trend, i showed you to be wrong

False.

and excerpted several sources which prove the contrary to your claim.
Please point out where in those sources is shows continuous, anamalously high sunspot activity for the entire length of the warming trend.
You're not going to find it, because it doesn't exist. Sunspot activity varies on 11 year cycles, from highs to low. It has varied continusouly throughout the entire industrial age and is NOT any kind of explanation for global warming.

But i guess that's "meaningless" also according to you?....

[
Yes, because it doesn't explain the global warming trend. The fluctuating field does not account for anywhere near the temperature increase that we are seeing and it doesn't match the actual pattern of temperature increase.

Well sorry to tell you you have been proven wrong by several sources,

You have not demonstrated via any of those sources how any of the astronomic drivers of climate that I mentioned (obliquity, eccentricity, and tilt) are responsible for global warming. You have not demonstrated any kind of match between any of the other plausible possible causes of an increase in temperature and the global warming record, nor have you shown that those other factors have even changed enough to cause the amount of temperature increase we have seen.

In fact this is happening in the entire solar system, which is another little fact which some people want to ignore.

This is false. There are some places in the solar system that are warming.

So what? They're not all warming, so its not going to be a matter of 'the sun is putting out more energy and heating everything'. The sun isn't putting out more energy to heat everything anyway, so its irrelevant.

Thousands of years?....

Yes, thousands of years. Modern industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are likely responsible for the current warming trend, which coincides with their increases.
PRIOR to that, man ALSO created anamalous 'unnatural' increases in greenhouse gases and particulates, such as occured with the worldwide expansion of agricultural crops like wheat and especially rice paddies.
We've been affecting climate for a long long time. In particlar the work of Ruddiman on this topic has been revealing, here is an article about him that is an introduction
www.virginia.edu...

The difference is that there is a lot of data and scientists who have discovered that mankind is not affecting Climate change as much as "a mayority of environmentalists" would like people to believe....

That fact is that the bulk of scientists, whether they study climate or not, agree that global warming is minimally exacerbated by man. Not everyone that researches climate is a hysterical environmentalist. The evidence simply weighs well in favour of it being man-made, and no plausible alternatives, let alone BETTER alternatives, have been proposed.

There is data to prove that there are natural causes which coincide with the fluctuation of temperatures on Earth, and have nothing to do with mankind's activity.

Yes. But that data does not suppor that THIS CURRENT increase is entirely natural.

Meanwhile there is data that contradicts the alarmists who claim they know for certain it is mankind who is the mayor cause for global warming...

Present it.

I wonder why the alarmists are so concerned that they want to stop any data which contradicts their position?.....

The person at the weather channel seems to be saying that because there is so much of a consensus amoung the scientific community that global warming is dangerous and man-made, that scientists who disagree with it are simply being irrational, they haven't presented evidence to convince the bulk of scientists that it is not, and therefore they aren't being scientific.
This makes some sense, but is really just a bunch of hooey. Besides, its up to the meterological association to decide who gets their 'seal of approval', as if it would matter anyway.

grover
only he has the FACTS and anyone who disputes with him is an idiot. I bet he is insufferable drunk.

We are all trying to have an adult conversation here about a serious and complex topic. If you have nothing to add, then please don't post.

we have a choice... believe the majority of the scientific opinion or the rantings of a blow hard in Wyoming

How about we evaluate the evidence for ourselves rather than rely on the statements of people we are arbitrarily decided are 'authoratative'.

While "consensus" does have a good use in science, it never should preclude discussion.

And again, since you can't prove those links and excerpts i gave are wrong, now you make more false claims and accusations....

Do you actually have any proof to back your false accusations grover?

I don't work for Exxon grover...nor do i work to spread any agenda for any oil company.

Would you care to actually discuss the topic instead of making the dumbest accusations you always make?.... or is that too much to ask from your intellect?....

Originally posted by Nygdan

Please point out where in those sources is shows continuous, anamalously high sunspot activity for the entire length of the warming trend.
You're not going to find it, because it doesn't exist.

The Sun is more active now than it has been for a millennium. The realisation, which comes from a reconstruction of sunspots stretching back 1150 years, comes just as the Sun has thrown a tantrum. Over the last week, giant plumes of have material burst out from our star's surface and streamed into space, causing geomagnetic storms on Earth.

www.newscientist.com...

Go back and read my original post and tell me what is false in it. Nothing. It is you who cannot abide hearing arguments that contradict your own.

Besides that you NEVER address the real issue, which is... Do humans and the chemicals we spew into the atmosphere contribute to the current warming trend and if so to what degree and what should be done about it?

Everything else you bring up is moot and deflects attention away the real issue. As such your barrage of so called facts are nothing more or less than obstructionist.

Originally posted by Nygdan
We are all trying to have an adult conversation here about a serious and complex topic. If you have nothing to add, then please don't post.

Solved that already, I put him on ignore.

Now let's get back to the discussion.

Another factor which I mentioned before, and I provided links to corraborate, is the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening. The last time there was a mayor flip on the Earth's magnetic field was 750,000-800,000 years ago.

The Earth's magnetic field shields us from cosmic rays and sunspots, a weakening in the magnetic field of the Earth increases the amount of radiation that reaches Earth and in turn affects the Earth's climate.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
John Roach
for National Geographic News

September 9, 2004
Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.

If the trend continues, the field may collapse altogether and then reverse. Compasses would point south instead of north.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here is a more recent article.

Cosmic rays set climate change on Earth, expert says
Scientist challenges greenhouse-gas theory
Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, March 16, 2006
OTTAWA - Stars, not greenhouse gases, are heating up the Earth.

So says prominent University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer.

He knows challenging the accepted climate-change theory may lead to a nasty fight.

It's a politically and economically loaded topic. Yet, he is speaking out about his published research. "Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "But I'm saying, at least let's look at this and discuss it.

"Every one of these things (parts of his theory) has its problems. But so does every other model" of how Earth's climate behaves.

Veizer says high-energy rays from distant parts of space are smashing into our atmosphere in ways that make our planet go through warm and cool cycles.

Cosmic rays are hitting us all the time -- a well-known fact. What's new is that researchers are asking what cosmic rays do to our world and its weather.

- Last year, the British science journal Proceedings of the Royal Society published a theory that cosmic rays "unambiguously" form clouds and affect our climate.

- Florida Tech and the University of Florida are jointly investigating whether cosmic rays are the trigger that makes a charged thundercloud let rip with lightning.

- In 2003, scientists from NASA and the University of Kansas suggested that cosmic rays "influence cloud formation, can affect climate and harm live organisms directly via increase of radiation dose," an effect they claim to trace over millions of years of fossil history.
...............
Even in recent times he argues that other cosmic factors can affect our climate as plausibly as carbon dioxide, or more so. The warming of Earth in the past 100 years -- about 0.6 degrees Celsius -- matches a time of the sun's growing intensity, he says.

www.canada.com...

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Muaddib]