Jeffrey Pearce and Peter Ames Mauney of Carnegie Mellon conducted a simulation and showed that cosmic rays play a negligible role compared to other effects, including greenhouse gases
People who are currently looking for new ways to explain climate change on Earth, which are not related to human activity, often tend to find the fault in cosmic rays, those that rain showers of atomic nuclei emitted from the sun and other sources in the universe.
In a new study published in the journal Geophysics Research Letters, it was stated that the cosmic rays play a negligible role compared to the other effects, including the greenhouse gases, and almost certainly do not significantly affect the Earth's climate.
Jeffrey Pearce and Peter Adams of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittssburg, Pennsylvania, pointed out that the cycles in countless climatic phenomena including the temperature in the troposphere and stratosphere, the air temperature at sea level, the temperature of the sea surface itself, and the low-elevation solar canopy have been found to be consistent with the 11-year solar cycle. However, the variation in the brightness of the sun alone is not enough to explain the effect and scientists have estimated for years that cosmic rays fill the gap. For example, Henrik Svensmark, a solar researcher from the Danish Space Research Institute, proposed several times and most recently in 2007, that cosmic rays originating from the sun can sow clouds on Earth - and he found evidence that during periods when there was a strong bombardment of cosmic rays on Earth, occurred Stormier weather patterns.
Others disagreed with him. "Dust and aerosols give us much faster ways to produce clouds than cosmic rays," said Mike Lockwood, a physicist who deals with the sun and its relationship with the Earth at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. This may be true, but I think it is very limited in scope."
To investigate this issue, Pierce and Adams ran a computer simulation simulating the flow of cosmic rays according to the 11-year solar cycle.
"In our simulation, there are changes in the concentrations of the nuclei in the cloud condensation process and it turns out that the changes in the intensity of the cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude lower than the observed changes in the properties of the clouds" they write. "As a result, we concluded that the hypothetical effect is too small to play a role in current climate change."
According to another paper that appeared this week in Science, Jan Kacil of the University of Colorado at Boulder reported results from a different set of models and confirmed that the effect of cosmic rays is very weak. In contrast, at least one researcher, Panjun Yu of the University at Albany in New York, argues that the quality of the Pierce and Adams simulation should be tested.
For the news in Universe Today
11 תגובות
You are innocent. There is nothing in the warming due to human influences.
The warming of Kadha is a result of the amount of radiation reaching us from the sun. Anyone who wants to understand the real reasons is invited to do a little research on the movement of Kadha in relation to the sun (of course it is about cycles of tens of thousands of years) and the specific area where Kadha is in space, in relation to the sun at the moment. Of course, other phenomena that happen to the sun also affect the climate in Kadaha. Those who really want to witness are invited to investigate the difference between the spectrum of sunlight today and 10 years ago, and there will be another surprise there as well.
No R.D. Warming is indeed a fact, but it works in ways that are hard to predict.
You usually see phenomena of more and more extreme things, but they have also cooled down - for example:
The warming of the water in the North Pole region causes the heat differences between the equator and the pole to decrease, and then the Gulf Stream weakens. The Gulf Stream is the heater of Europe and Great Britain, and when it slows down, you get the effects of a harsh, stormy winter and cooling down.
It's called chaos... trying to explain something by a certain phenomenon or denying the explanation, and attributing the explanation to another phenomenon is a waste of time. The risk taken by postponing the treatment of the problem is enormous.
No. Ben Ner
Global warming is not exactly a fact. There are many places in the world where the temperatures actually dropped in the last two years. In general, there are claims (published in the most respected newspapers, NATURE, SCIENCE) that claim that the world will not warm up until 2015, that NASA is "renovating" past temperature measurements to create a warming pattern (whom they claim is responsible for this is the scientific advisor for Al Gore's film).
I have attached a link that gives a good picture of the new claims. interesting.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Interesting but I think they probably have a mistake somewhere.
The circumstantial evidence for this claim is that even marine transport vehicles do not use the solution.
The scientific consideration is that there is no "nothing".
The energy obtained from combustion is the energy released when hydrogen burns and turns into water.
The fuel material is hydrogen released from water and to release it, you had to invest exactly the same amount of energy as the one received in burning it.
It is true that this is salt water and it is possible that the salt contributes something, but I am unsure if it is really a lot, especially in light of the fact that surely not all the radiation energy is captured in the process.
An engine that runs on sea water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJUSWWCHKeE
Hi Michael 🙂
I saw on an episode of Discovery Science or National Geographic two or three years ago. In the movie they explained how the engine works when it is inside the boat and the boat sails, even fast.
I have no reference, if that is your question
Chen T:
I don't think it's a matter of eggs.
Do you know for sure about an engine that runs on sea water?
Can you point to a reliable source on the matter?
Why isn't the engine used in all vessels?
At the moment I have great doubts about the correctness of the claim.
They have already invented an engine that works on sea water, and a racing boat engine, an engine that works on gas, one that works on oil. Still, what causes international companies not to produce cars based on these engines is a lack of the ability to distribute the fuel to existing gas stations as well as a lack of development of refueling pumps for the chosen type.
Imagine a situation in which the State of Israel, located on the Mediterranean Sea, manufactures cars based on sea water, and obligates a gas station in the country to install at least one pump, and the gas companies to supply at least once a week a tanker with sea water to the gas stations along the truck line.
The car can be small and cute, in the Hyundai Getz style, without import taxes on a car abroad, without a big bloated engine and a low monthly cost of water.
After such an initial initiative by Israel or any other country, there will be other manufacturers who will develop such cars, and at least in this direction the problem can be solved.
It takes one brave country, and an infrastructure minister with bull's eggs to initiate such a project.
to their city
Global warming is a fact.
The temperatures are measured. There is no debate about that. With all due respect to your belief, it is not relevant to the measured facts.
At the same time, there can be different opinions as to the causes of atmospheric warming like this. Here it is already possible to give too much weight to your diagnostic belief. At the same time, it is not possible to completely ignore the opinion of many learned researchers, whose opinion is the opposite of yours, they actually attribute a lot of weight to the carbonaceous pollutants in the rise of the atmospheric temperature.
By the way, what is your belief regarding the depletion of the ozone concentration in the upper layers of the atmosphere? Don't you believe that too? And if you don't believe that the cause is the emission of man-made volatile pollutants? So, what, according to your belief, is the cause of the "hole in the ozone"?
And I will end with the blessing "The righteous in his faith shall live."
Oh sure, I also saw this movie and they just talked about the possibility that cosmic rays cause clouds and these act as a greenhouse. The movies on Yes Doku and all these channels are quite old...
The argument in the article now is what they tried to argue, in places like this movie it is not true...
The greenhouse gases that we create are responsible for barely 0.0X of all the components of the atmosphere... the difference that man makes is measured in the thousands... and there is no graphic correlation between these gases and the warming of the earth... you are familiar with harsh words... I suggest to anyone who believes in this global warming... and I was a witness A month and a bit ago I am a big believer...to see or download the movie called this...which was shown and will probably be shown again Bis Docu...which shows what is really responsible for the warming and cooling of the earth and how they work on us with the eyes.