Cosmic Rays Add Little to Climate Change

www.climatenewsnetwork.net...

A theory favoured by many climate deniers is that cosmic rays, not human activity, are responsible for global warming. The rays can have played at most a very small part, new research finds.

LONDON, 8 November – Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds, have contributed no more than 10% to global warming, according to two British scientists.

Clouds and their role in keeping the Earth’s surface cool by reflecting sunlight back into space have been one of the biggest uncertainties of climate change science.

The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.

The solar wind’s greater magnetic field deflects away some of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the Earth from elsewhere in the galaxy. So, if the theory linking cosmic rays and cloud formation is correct, increased sunspot activity could potentially reduce cloud cover.

To try to quantify the effect that solar activity – whether directly or through cosmic rays -may have had on global temperatures in the twentieth century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955.

They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct effects of the Sun.

I found this article very informative and hope others will as well.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Funny article. "The Sun doesn't contribute to 'climate change' that much." If it weren't there the Earth would be a ball of ice. The Sun certainly does affect the climate. It warms us, lights our path and makes things grow. I know. We are talking about the sun's "other rays". And deep space "other rays".

The Earth's magnetic field blocks most of that. Unless a big enough CME is released straight at us, there isn't much to worry about. It is the dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere that traps the Sun's heat and raises the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, right?

Somebody explain this to me.

reply to post by intrptr


even funnier, is how they fail to point out that both solar AND terrestrial magnetic fields have been decreasing in strength for quite some time.

of course the mention of climate deniers from the start shows this article for the pseudo scientific charlatanry it is.

Published on Jan 21, 2013

1) The climate change is real, and there is more to it than CO2 and 'global warming' - it is all extremes.
2) The entire solar system appears to be changing simultaneously.
3) The magnetic changes on earth began hundreds of years ago, and need to be tracked more effectively.
4) Weather modification appears to be implemented, and IMHO it is a zero-sum game.

Fact vs Opinion: The 'Weather Modification' segment contains many statements of my personal opinion on the negative aspects of the various applications. I have nothing but my humble opinion on those matters; humans survived this event before, and we can do it again now.

HAARP comments are meant to help focus our efforts to properly identify these various machines of modification. While auroral modulation has it's benefits, my negative comments about weather modification applies to HAARP as well.

I think that this is true. We go through Solar minimums and solar maximum times on an alternate basis every eleven years or so. These balance out. I compared weather patterns in the local area to the Solar cycle. I found that after the peak of the solar max was over the next winter had a lot of snow from looking back at about eighty years or so of records. This has some influence on our local weather because of where we are, stuck in between two of the great lakes. I checked this against areas not near this body of water and did not see much. I guess I am more interested in our weather paterns where I live, someone else can find out the relationship where they live.

I did not look at temperatures, I looked at snowfalls. We had a double peak this time and after the first peak we got snow. I suspect that this will happen after the second peak this year also. It is just something I decided to look at. It is semi-scientific.

Now this levels off, with colder weather in minimum years and warmer weather in max years. it seems to follow a rough pattern. This is the way it seems to work, in an eleven year cycle it tends to balance off with no real gain or loss of temperature. I say this is normal. You have to compare total cycle temps to find if we are cooling or warming here. This is mostly because of wind patterns, not because of a warming, the wind direction is more predominant in different parts of the cycle. This seems to be associated with location between the two great lakes and it varies dependant to which lake you are closest to and how far from shore you are. It also necessitates knowing direction to the Lake, Canada will have a different pattern on the other side of Superior. I care only about looking at the effect of where I live, I don't care about researching other locations.

So now that I have told you all that what I am dribbling about will have nothing to do with you, I wonder why I even bother mentioning it. Your chosen shoe very rarely fits others as well as it fits you.

intrptr
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Funny article. "The Sun doesn't contribute to 'climate change' that much." If it weren't there the Earth would be a ball of ice. The Sun certainly does affect the climate. It warms us, lights our path and makes things grow. I know. We are talking about the sun's "other rays". And deep space "other rays".

The Earth's magnetic field blocks most of that. Unless a big enough CME is released straight at us, there isn't much to worry about. It is the dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere that traps the Sun's heat and raises the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, right?

Somebody explain this to me.

Climate Change - not Climate.

Read the very short very simple article.

Metaphysique
reply to post by intrptr

 

even funnier, is how they fail to point out that both solar AND terrestrial magnetic fields have been decreasing in strength for quite some time.

The research wasn't against anything. They were seeing if the suns cycles actually effected cloud cover (as some people have theorized to advance their own agenda). The research says "The Suns effects account for less than 10% of cumulative climate change since the mid 1950s.

Please read the article - instead of parroting talking points you heard somewhere - maybe on the Peer Reviewed You Tube channel. We all know if it's on You Tube is the truth with a capital T.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Climate Change - not Climate.

Read the very short very simple article.

I did. Heres the thing. Every day the sun comes up and burns off the cloud cover. Every day. Every year it melts the polar ice caps. Every year.

So the climate changes a lot because of the daily and yearly cycles of the sun. A lot more than some theorized overall change. Besides the ice core record reflects differently. Look at the first video in Metaphysiques reply to me. Look at the CO2 spike on the chart. Its off the chart. Thats what is affecting climate. Thats what these people want you to forget about because the real naysayers are the corporations that want to protect their "right" to pollute the earths biosphere.

intrptr
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Climate Change - not Climate.

Read the very short very simple article.

I did. Heres the thing. Every day the sun comes up and burns off the cloud cover. Every day. Every year it melts the polar ice caps. Every year.

So the climate changes a lot because of the daily and yearly cycles of the sun. A lot more than some theorized overall change. Besides the ice core record reflects differently. Look at the first video in Metaphysiques reply to me. Look at the CO2 spike on the chart. Its off the chart. Thats what is affecting climate. Thats what these people want you to forget about because the real naysayers are the corporations that want to protect their "right" to pollute the earths biosphere.

I agree with you about the CO2.

The point of the research was to rebutt the idea that the Sun is the cause of global warming. The argument being that because global warming is caused by the sun then human activity is not the cause of it. I've seen this theory of the Sun's responsibity for global warming used over and over on global warming threads on this site.

Yes the sun warms us and gives us life. But it is a narrow band of liveablity. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the main driver of global warming and key in a positive global climate loop whereby increased temperate leds to less ice mass reflecting heat back into space with leads to more warming, less ice, more warming.

Many say it's a normal cyclical thing. Average CO2 consentration in the atomsphere (it rises and falls during the seasons) is at it's highest levels for (I think approaching an yearly average of 350 ppm) then it has been since man has walked the earth:

www.theguardian.com...

For the first time in human history, the concentration of climate-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed the milestone level of 400 parts per million (ppm). The last time so much greenhouse gas was in the air was several million years ago, when the Arctic was ice-free, savannah spread across the Sahara desert and sea level was up to 40 metres higher than today.

Here is a good animated slide show recounting CO2 levels throughout history (recent and ancient):

www.theguardian.com...

The argument that man was around before the 1950s and the levels weren't rising preceptatisly (help with spelling) is because the climate could sustain a certain increase before a tipping point was reached that catapulted beyond historic homeostatis into a CO2 reinforcing loop.

I think you and I are on the same page (I've been wrong before).

I was mearly addressing the "human activity doens't cause global warming" meme with some scientific findings.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Help me out here? Please? ...It's my understanding that the particles in cosmic and solar rays "seed" cloud formation - cloud cover blocks the sun's warming rays, and has a cooling effect. The hope was that this cooling effect might neutralize or at least mitigate pollution's warming effect - but - turns out that it affects only 10%. Not enough. ...Where did my understanding go wrong?

“We conclude that the level of contribution of changing solar activity is less than 10% of the measured global warming observed in the twentieth century."

reply to post by FyreByrd

I think you and I are on the same page (I've been wrong before).

I was mearly addressing the "human activity doesn't cause global warming" meme with some scientific findings.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that, you're not mistaken. We're both on the same page. Sorry about the lecture.

One other thing or a question even. The earth always seems to recover from these episodes. Even though the CO2 is higher than recorded history. Heres an observation.

If the earth heats up and more ice melts (its been doing that already, see glaciers) then sea levels will rise, right? This will inundate coastal areas and waterways to some extent. That will increase the surface area overall of standing water on the planet, which will increase the rate of evaporation, which will increase the cloud cover and thereby cool the planet, reversing the warming trend.

More clouds mean more rain and snow in higher elevations and a return of ice to glaciers and the poles. A self regulating system. Just this wishful, underedumacated thought process I came up with.

Now if we can only get people to turn off the lights and stop burning forests.

soficrow
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Help me out here? Please? ...It's my understanding that the particles in cosmic and solar rays "seed" cloud formation - cloud cover blocks the sun's warming rays, and has a cooling effect. The hope was that this cooling effect might neutralize or at least mitigate pollution's warming effect - but - turns out that it affects only 10%. Not enough. ...Where did my understanding go wrong?

“We conclude that the level of contribution of changing solar activity is less than 10% of the measured global warming observed in the twentieth century."

My guess would be that clouds don't have a huge impact on warming. The reflective impact of ice masses is much more important to the cooling of the planet.

The article, I do recommend reading it again, shows that the suns activity doesn't effect cloud formation in the way theorized. The article does say how they measured the effect and how they found that effect to be responsible for less then 10% of Global.

It is a bit tricky - there is no single cause of global warming. However, most experts (there are always outliers), agree that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

Sun activity plays a part but CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is the main player. It's a multi-dimensional problem that requires multi-dimensional solutions.

A nice animated slide show by The Guardian on CO2:

www.theguardian.com...

reply to post by FyreByrd


I think clouds play a not insignificant role in global temperature, it's just been extremely difficult to pinpoint how much... one thing that's come about recently is that clouds act as both coolers and warmers, the same way some aerosols can. I think what this article is trying to say is that cosmic rays effect on clouds is negligible.

increase in CO2 explained in 1st 3 minutes in video

here's a quick blast from the past
0:19
focal point is cosmic rays, if true,
0:22
this new strengthens the arguments for cosmic climate forcing especially given
0:26
that earth's magnetic shield is weakening according to
0:29
every official source. I say if true, because I have previously examined the
0:33
arguments on both sides of this
0:35
even among the leaders in the field there's much disagreement on cosmic rays
0:40
and clouds
0:41
but a point where everyone is on the same page is this
0:44
solar activity and strong magnetic fields associated with it block galactic
0:49
radiation
0:49
this is an old University of Delaware page but is perfect for this example
0:54
up top we have solar cycles high activity mean strong fields and
0:58
emissions
0:59
and when that magnetic shield weakens during solar minimum
1:02
the cosmic rays below penetrate much more
1:05
even comparing cycle to cycle look how much stronger one cycle is then another
1:11
and how much more the cosmic rays plummeted during the stronger solar
1:14
activity
1:15
this correlation is incontrovertible
1:18
that overview earth's magnetic shield has a partner in failure
1:23
and his cohort is our star when two National Solar Observatory physicists
1:28
suggested our next cycle could have no sunspots many ignored it but
1:32
the pattern and indicators for magnetic shut down cycle to cycle
1:36
like the Dalton or even mini muander like minima is now
1:39
also incontrovertible we are at the point of a solar pole flip now the cycle
1:44
is almost peaked
1:45
it is in progress so to speak we know the southern pole flipped in 2012 right
1:49
there and
1:50
if there is any indication of what's coming the weakening will continue
1:54
what would erasing that delicate cosmic ray balance on earth do to our climate
1:59
I'm not sure, but with Earth's field weakening 10 percent since the 19th
2:03
century we are seeing
2:05
two shields fade with one of them the more important one for cosmic rays
2:09
potentially going on hiatus for awhile. I find it odd the cosmic rays are not a
2:13
greater focal point in mainstream climate science
2:16
this doesn't belong hidden in paid journals, occasionally summarized on science
2:20
pages days to weeks later
2:22
this is what everyone should know. now that was a follow up to
2:26
they want to blame you; the UN climate liars building their case against us
2:31
speaking of them, not only have they managed to have a greater confidence
2:35
inhuman driven warming even with global cooling or stagnation being
2:39
undeniable over more than a decade now
2:43
the claim is that the failure to have higher temperatures
2:46
is because of the UN ozone pact they forget the 2010
2:50
Iceland volcano undid more than half of all human co2 reduction effort in
2:54
history
2:55
but don't you forget that those are the same people blaming you
2:59
the ones to whom all first nations have given control
3:02

www.astrobio.net...