Cosmic Rays?

[cam5e]

A bit of food for thought,


HomeNEWS WorldEurope My ProfileOffersSitemapFrom The TimesFebruary 12, 2007

‘Blame cosmic rays not CO2 for warming up the planet’Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

The impact of cosmic rays on the climate could be greater than scientists suspect after experiments showed they may have a pivotal role in cloud formation.

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist in Denmark, said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

Cosmic rays — radiation, or particles of energy, from stars, which bombard the Earth — can create electrically charged ions in the atmosphere that act as a magnet for water vapour, causing clouds to form.

Dr Svensmark suggests that the Sun, at a historically high level of activity, is deflecting many of the cosmic rays away from Earth and thus reducing the cloud cover.

Clouds reflect the Sun’s rays back into space and are considered to have an important cooling effect. However, if during periods of high activity the Sun’s magnetic field pushes a greater proportion of cosmic rays away from the Earth, fewer clouds will form.

The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, concentrates on how ions are created and behave in the atmosphere when cosmic rays from stars hit it.

Cosmic rays were replicated by the use of ultraviolet light that were turned on and off in both short bursts and long exposures to create ions. The researchers found that the presence of ions encouraged the formation of clusters of molecules.

In the atmosphere these clusters of ozone, sulphur dioxide and water are understood to act as aerosols in attracting water vapour, culminating in the formation of clouds.

The number of clusters, according to the report, is proportionate to the number of ions present, which in turn depends on the frequency of cosmic rays reaching the Earth.

“The experiment indicates that ions play a role in nucleating new particles in the atmosphere and that the rate of production is sensitive to the rate of ion density,” the report concluded. “One might expect to find a relationship between ioni-sation and cloud properties. This feature seems to be consistent with the present work.”

The report added that the ions were likely to generate a reservoir of clusters of aerosol molecules in the atmosphere that “are important for nuclea-tion processes in the atmosphere and ultimately cloud formation”.

The findings are unlikely to change radically the views of mainstream climatologists. Nevertheless, a team of scientists will shortly begin a larger experiment at a particle accelerator in Europe in the hope of learning more about the effects of cosmic rays on cloud cover.

According to the Intergovern-mental Panel for Climate Change, by far the biggest influence on climate change is the level of greenhouse gases released by mankind, largely through the use of fossil fuels.

Peter Stott, of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and one of Britain’s leading climate scientists, said that Dr Svensmark’s theory should be taken “with a cellar of salt”. Small, localised effects on cloud formation might be possible but he dismissed the suggestion of cosmic rays being responsible for global warming.

[Kurt (Indiana)]

I read that article today and it opens a speculation gap as to the real cause (and /or control) of global warming. I believe that the earth's climate and temperature are changing but the entire earth must be considered in the event. The polar bears are floating while the antarctic ice sheet is growing but the second half of the discussion is not widely presented.

So far I've lived through a scare of charcoal cooking, bacon causing cancer, eggs and cholesterol, butter scare, and now trans fat scare, a warming period, then cooling (ice age predictions) and now warming frenzy all brought on with data and models that don't include all of the factors.
I'm really interested in the conclusions draw from the experiments that will be conducted.

The only thing that seems to have been effective is the addition of flouride to the water. I still have my teeth.

While it can't hurt to be aware of the atmosphere and be responsilbe citizens of the earth, the knee jerk reactions need to be debated and analized so that all of the facts are presented in a non political arena.
url link

[Ira]

While it can't hurt to be aware of the atmosphere and be responsilbe citizens of the earth, the knee jerk reactions need to be debated and analized so that all of the facts are presented in a non political arena.
url link

That's what just happened:

The scientists have spoken, and that's what prompted this thread in the first.

They said it's real.

[Kurt (Indiana)]

The scientists have spoken, and that's what prompted this thread in the first.

They said it's real.

Ira , I believe it (global warming) is real, that can be measured. The reasons and accuracy for the future predictions are I want to learn more about.
I just want to hear both sides instead of being told what to believe in a state of panic and frenzy. I think there are a lot of unconsidered details yet to be brought out by scientists that are contributing to the climate and I'd like the chance to make my own (informed) decision.

Doesn't make a bad person. I'm on the side of the (whole) truth.