Start A Petition

Global Warming Not a Cosmic Swindle


Science & Tech  (tags: global warming, man-made, greenhouse gases, skeptics, solar activity, cosmic, clouds, sun, heat, live science, breakthroughs )

LL
- 4090 days ago - news.yahoo.com
Skeptics who argue that global warming is caused by cosmic rays rather than man-made greenhouse gases have been dealt another blow. Some who question the human-induced global warming scenario argue that changes in the intensity of these rays, which are ca



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Judy Cross (83)
Friday April 11, 2008, 12:54 pm
Apr 11, 2008
Is the Causal Link Between Cosmic Rays and Cloud Cover Really Dead??
http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale
By Nir Shaviv, Science Bits

Just recently, Sloan and Wolfendale published a paper in Environmental Research Letters, called “Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover”. In the Institute of Physics Press Release, it said, “New research has deal a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than man made greenhouse gases”. Did it really? First, we should note that so called “skeptics” like myself or my serious colleagues never claimed that cosmic rays explain all the climate change, it does however explain most of the solar-climate link and a large fraction (perhaps 2/3’s of the temperature increase over the 20th century).

Now for the paper itself. Sloan and Wolfendale raise three points in their analysis. Although I certainly respect the authors (Arnold Wolfendale is very well known for his contributions to the subjects of cosmic rays and high energy astrophysics, he was even the astronomer royal, and for good reasons), their present critique rests on several faulty assumptions. Here I explain why each of the three arguments raised cannot be used to discredit the cosmic-ray/climate link.

image
(From Usoskin et al. 2004). See large image here. The observed latitudinal variation in the cloud cover as a function of the magnetic latitude (right) or as a function of the atmospheric ionization variations (left). The graphs clearly demonstrate that the cloud cover varies as expected from the ionization variations.

Sloan and Wolfendale raised three critiques which supposedly discredit the CRF/climate link. A careful check, however, reveals that the arguments are inconsistent with the real expectations from the link. Two arguments are based on the expectation for effects which are much larger than should actually be present. In the third argument, they expect to see no phase lag, where one should actually be present. When carefully considering the link, Sloan and Wolfendale did not raise any argument which bares any implications to the validity or invalidity of the link.

One last point. Although many in the climate community try to do their best to disregard the evidence, there is a large solar-climate link, whether on the 11-year solar cycle (e.g., global temperature variations of 0.1C), or on longer time scales. Currently, the cosmic-ray climate link is the only known mechanism which can explain the large size of the link, not to mention that independent CRF variations were shown to have climatic effects as well. As James Whitcomb Riley supposedly once said: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck”. Read the detailed Shaviv reply to the Sloan and Wlfendale points here.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Science & Tech





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.