A Report Media Will Ignore: Cosmic Rays Cause Global Warming

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

Don’t expect to read about this in the New York Times, or have it discussed by Matt and Meredith on Monday.

A new book will be released next week making the case that global warming is likely much more caused by cosmic rays than any human activity. As reported by the Daily Telegraph (emphasis mine throughout):

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

The article continued:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Fascinating stuff, yes? What’s that do for all this absurd consensus talk? And, the article went on to address how a group of scientists will be convening in Switzerland soon to further test his theories:

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

Furthermore, the article demonstrated that far from being the consensus surrounding this issue that the U.N., Al Gore, or liberal media representatives claim, there is great debate concerning this matter:

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds."

The point is, folks, that there is no consensus. Not even close. And, before America starts doing anything that might have a negative impact on our economy or our ability to compete globally, we ought to have all the facts – not just those supplied by folks looking to turn this into a political victory.

 

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well, this is a job for SUPER

Well, this is a job for SUPER GORE! He will jump in the nearest phone booth and go fight off every cosmic ray in the universe! Those cosmic rays don't stand a chance!

You are dead wrong.  Gore an

You are dead wrong.  Gore and people like that twit, Throatwobbler, who  pollutes this blog regularly on the topic of anthropogenic global warming will do as they have always done:  They will continue to exaggerate and lie and quote junk science and this corrupt UN commission known as the IPCC, and while they are doing this their willing accomplices in the MSM will continue to cover or them by spiking stories like this one and emphasizing reports of extreme weather.

hmmmm... 'corrupt UN'?  Isn't that a redundant expression?

NL207 I was kidding... mmm

NL207

I was kidding... mmm... I was more like mocking, Gore...

I realize that. However, he

I realize that. However, he is much too dangerous not to take seriously.

oh, okay, point taken. But it

oh, okay, point taken. But it still would be funny to see a caricature of Gore in red tights. Would it not be?

I thought it was funny, Debra

I thought it was funny, Debra.      ;^)

lol... Thank you, Indiana Joe

lol... Thank you, Indiana Joe. With all that is going wrong in the world, sometimes we need to laugh at something. I like the little face that you made, that made me laugh. loll....

Maybe Mel Brooks can find som

Maybe Mel Brooks can find some useful work for Gore.

Who is "Cosmic Ray?&quot

Who is "Cosmic Ray?"

Sounds like someone who dropped too much acid back in the sixties.

Must be an old friend of Al Gore's...or that other fellow that didn't exhale.

Cosmic Rays

Didn't Cosmic Ray fight Ali in Manila?

Gordo

Melmac

It was bad enough when Bush

It was bad enough when Bush was making hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis, now he's causing the sun to burn us up! /sarcasm of course...

Solar activity versus global warming - consensus or not

The above discussion of the forthcoming "Chilling Stars..." book concludes that because there are some disagreements, Henrik Svensmark's in particular, there is no consensus on climate change.

The problem I have with this main conclusion, is that the meaning of "consensus" is not discussed sufficiently. Not only should one state what one's personal definition of consensus is, but also allow for what definition of consensus is being used by the sky is falling crowd -- oops -- I mean the Global Warming is happening crowd. Do we mean consensus is achieved when 80 % of the climatologists agree, or do we mean consensus is only achieved when 99.9% of climatologists agree? And what do we mean by "close" to consensus? Like there is probably not even total consensus that E = MC squared, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about North Korea building nukes. And I remember well how long cigarette companies baffled us with "there is no consensus about the dangers of smoking", and there were even a few articles about the benefits of nicotine floating around.

Read the new book, sure, but don't forget that we sometimes have to take action on possibilites, and it takes a cool headed, non-political judgement, to optimize the chances of making the right decision on something as subtle as climate change. Dont resist the idea just because your political opponents were first to capitalize on the issue, and don't be stampeded by an ignorant public political fashion statement either. No knee-jerk clique-ish positions are needed on issues like these, only deeper study of facts and study of how to evaluate the honesty and ability of the various presumed authorities is needed. We cannot all be experts, but usually we can develop an idea of who is consistantly correct, scientific and unbiased, as much as humanly possible.

Milk River, AB

(hey, the snow stopped but it's cool. Happily it's still above 0 F -- even if only a hair. Do I thank Al Gore for that? Or the hot air from all the silly talk?)

Consensus is a political conc

Consensus is a political concept.  It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the application of government force.  I sincerely hope the people like Sen Inhofe can fight a rearguard action against the political forces nitwits lke Al Gore have marshalled long enough for some real scince to dispove these wild predictions.

If consensus mattered a whit

If consensus mattered a whit in scientific theory, the world would still be flat.

*****

"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello

"...we sometimes have to

"...we sometimes have to take action on possibilites, and it takes a cool headed, non-political judgement, to optimize the chances of making the right decision on something as subtle as climate change."

Your premise that those within the "consensus" are cool headed and non-political,  is inherently flawed as neither is true. If it were then we wouldn't see ad hominem attacks on those who disagree (e.g. he's in the pocket of big oil)nor would we see obviously wrong headed and frankly, frightening diatribes by the leading proponents of global warming (e.g. AlGore's wild eyed, spittle-flecked rants).

The problem with modern environmental science is that many who practice it are environmentalists.

This is interesting, as I'd

This is interesting, as I'd always assumed solar temperature changes were entirely due to IR rather than cosmic radiation. Mars has barely any atmosphere compared to us, and the news media of course also ignores politically-inconvenient Mars-weather, but this might also play a role there.
JMR

THAT'S IT! That's why they at

THAT'S IT! That's why they attacked us! The changing weather on Mars forced the martians to invade earth. Quic call Jack, and crank up the Slim Whitman. (sorry silly Sunday)

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Astrophysics

Great! Now all we need is a report mentioning the sun's 20 year solar cycle/sunspot cycle and Earth's magnetic poles nearing the completion of their periodic reversal so the media can successfully ignore all relevant evidence against man-made global warming.

If you haven't made your mi

If you haven't made your mind up yet, here is another good read.

D

Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.

You can also send faxes to your reps for free from NumbersUSA<

Unstoppable Global Warming: E

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer

Available at Amazon.com for $15.12 to $16.47 ...

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

Commentary on the book here :

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/UnstoppableGlobalWarming.pdf

Table of Contents here :

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0610/2006009308.html

DaveYouMustBeHigh

As I said above, a good read. The 'liberal' left is trying to silence the authors, which says a lot. The discussion you linked also touches on the boondoggle known as corn to ethanol.

D

Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.

You can also send faxes to your reps for free from NumbersUSA<

The obvious solution to this

The obvious solution to this problem is a "cosmic ray tax".  After all, the homeless, the poor, women, etc. are all at great risk from this threat and why won't you greeeeeeeeeeedyyyyyy conservatives help, yadda yadda yadda......

(Sarcasm alert)

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." --Hubert Humphrey

Whoooaaa ... if it's cosmic r

Whoooaaa ... if it's cosmic rays that are causing this mythical half-degree increase in "global" temperature then eco-militants couldn't push crippling economic regulations in Congress and the U.N. ... it's got to be MAN-MADE global warming or the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

If Henrik Svensmark has compe

If Henrik Svensmark has compelling evidence that Global Warming is not all what we think it is, I am all ears and willing to listen.  I look forward to his theories being peer reviewed and tested.  If it is as he suggests that human influences play a smaller role in global warming than most scientists currently believe, that’s great news because it gives us all more time to make the necessary course corrections. 

It begs the question, though.  If liberals such as myself are willing to examine all sides of an issue, why is it that conservatives seek only to refute what most scientists believe; that global warming is either caused or accelerated by manmade influences?  Why is it a conservative cause celeb to refute the scientific community on this and many other issues, such as the big bang theory and evolution? 

As an aside, I read an interesting article this morning http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/4542922.html about how Texas’ largest Baptist group is seeking to block Gov. Rick “Goodhair” Perry’s plan to fast track 18 new coal-fired power plants.  They are doing so out of concern for the environment and they realize that big energy concerns won’t police themselves in terms of environmental stewardship.  Now that’s progress, I tell ya!  Even if global warming is beyond our control, at least the discussion is raising some people’s consciousness.  And that is a good thing.

Regards, Dave High

Liberals listen to other side. Blah Blah Blah, oh yeah, Blah

Liberals listen to other side.  Blah Blah Blah, oh yeah, Blah

Conservatives only believe in "creation science" blah blah, blah blah.

Still with the Democrat Party Talking points I see.  More bumper sticker ranting on your part, I see.

Read up on coal fired technology; read the rest of your silly article which clearly states that this 'moderate' Baptist group is going against the largest population of Baptists in the US in their environmental whacko stand.

I'm not a Baptist, Dave, so don't go there.  I'm not a Christian so don't go there.

I'm just a guy who thinks that a person who claims all Conservatives are Science idiots and completely ignorant of 'truth' in science is himself, well, I'll leave that to the imagination of the reader.

By the way, Dave, 'most scientists' include a hell of a lot of people.  Do you think this comment improves your credibility?   What a joke you can be Dave.

It's funny, really.  But sad.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

If liberals (sic) such as m

If liberals (sic) such as myself are willing to examine all sides of an issue, why is it that conservatives seek only to refute what most scientists believe;

You really do talk bollocks. Even for a lib***l.

That is precisely how science progresses. By refuting what went before.

You know, how the Steady State theory of the universe was replaced recently by the Big Bang theory... because of the discovery of uniform background radiation from said Big Bang.

So that Big Bang "theory" has now been accepted as a better explanation. But as we cannot predict the future, who knows what discoveries may cast doubt and refute THAT theory.

So, let's just examine your method. You would contend that as most physicists (but not all) have accepted that the universe started with a Big Bang between 12-20 billion years ago this is now the end of the dark matter.

That no scientist should dare challenge this thesis with observations to falsify or refute it. You know, the way other physicists challenged the previously universally accepeted Steady State theory with observations of the background radiation?

Or the way scientists who previously had thought a new Ice Age was about to begin, changed to thinking a man-made Hot Age was about to begin.

But please do tell us of the laboratory tests which prove the man-made global warming theory you mistakenly think has been "proved."

We would all love to know.

"Our readers don't give a rat's ass about what you think. They want facts."

Elmore Leonard, 'The Hot Kid'.

Well what do ya know... the

Well what do ya know... the Big Bang theory may not actually have as much support any longer. http://www.physorg.c...

Granted, this is just one different theory, but it does give evidence that the Big Bang has viable alternatives and that no THEORY is yet fact. In fact, the theory of gravity is not yet complete either. We have some assumptions and common understandings of how gravity works. But we are very limited in our understanding of how it works anywhere else but here on Earth and on the Moon. As we progress the science, we'll understand it better and quite possibly, turn the old science on it's head.

Since we're able to discover an alternative explanation for the creation of the Universe, or better yet, we've now got proof that a steady state universe actually CAN exist... it seems only logical for libs to see the folly in their claims of consensus.... because it seems that there was a consensus on the Big Bang theory at one time, yet that may actually be wrong. That the Universe may actually not be 15 to 16 billion years old, but far older if not infinite.

But consensus isn't for science, it is for politics like was said above. Liberals don't care about the issue as long as it allows them to take more control over what you do, and to take more of what you make. Liberals want control. Liberals want power. And Liberals won't stop unless someone actively stops them.

____________________________________________________

"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine

Mr. High has made a little &q

Mr. High has made a little "progress" here, back-handed comments aside.

Mr. High's begrudging semi-admittance that, perhaps, he is having a tiny twinge of doubt in the new Liberal Church of Global Warming, is a start.

Perhaps it is because Mr. High finds himself in unfamiliar territory, that being he is having doubts in his new God, that he must temper this uncomfortable confusion by accusing the Right of never, ever, ever, doing the same. Putting down that Kool-Aid was a welcome start, Mr. High!

At least Mr. High was able to compose a post without the words "chimp" or "Bush" in it. Now if only Mr. High could possibly compose a post where there are NO shots taken at anyone from the other side of the political spectrum, then would true "progress" have been made.

You are all about the "progress", are you not, Mr. High?

Your post is still written wi

Your post is still written with the presumption that governmental action is needed. This reveals that you really don't consider the possibilty that the opponents of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming are correct to be viable. Hence, action will be needed regardless. Your mind is actually closed regardless of any facade you may present here to the contrary.

So what IS your real agenda? Are you so certain these global warming alarmists are right? They cannot be right. e. g. Al Gore claims the sea levels will rise 20 feet by 2100 in his propaganda movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". The "scientists" he relies upon predict the rise in the next century will be between 0.1 an 0.9 meters, or at most, 3 feet. Gore is clearly a liar.

Or is it that you want to impose socialist/fascist controls on free enterprise. Regulation of all energy production is an excellent start for the would-be communist.

Maybe your real goal is to erect a world government headed by those thieves in the UN which will raise money for redistribution by "carbon taxes" levied against the United States and other traditional European Cultures. This is in perfect concert with the Kyoto Protocol's glaring omission of China and India, depsite their being the world's #2 and #4 economies respectively.

My vote is for the last possibility. So which is it Dave?

Dave, I'm curious, what Conse

Dave, I'm curious, what Conservative has attempted to refute the Big Bang Theory?  None that I'm aware of.

Why is it a conservative caus

Why is it a conservative cause celeb to refute the scientific community on this and many other issues, such as the big bang theory and evolution? 

That's easy - because many of the cause celebs of the Leftists in the scientific community are driven by a political agenda rather than the pursuit of truth.  In the case of AGW its an agenda that seeks to take more freedom and choice from the hands of the people and place it with a growing, intrusive government.  Contemporary American Conservatism by definition seeks to defend personal freedom and restrict this growth of government.

Poor Dave.  The Houston Comi

Poor Dave.  The Houston Comical is a horrific newspaper, which is as Leftist as you want it.  Naturally they would have a gushing story about how a group of Baptists - just like you - want desperately to have Texas, and the entire United States, rot economically.

In fact, it will never cease to amaze me how greedily you suck the tit of the United States' economy, capitalism, and free markets, and whine the entire time about how much you desperately want it destroyed. 

(Personally, I would love to see those coal-fired plants replaced - with two, perhaps, FOUR! - new PWRs at the South Texas Nuclear Project, some additional reactors at COmanche Park, and a whole new reactor from scratch.  If France can get 78.5% of their juice from nukes - and they don't even have a place for nuclear waste to be disposed of! - why can't we?)

Oh well.  I leave you to wallow in your self-loathing and guilt. 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

cosmic rays

cosmic rays, I thought it was moom beams bouncing off algores head, go figure

Apparently, all of those bi

Apparently, all of those big, gas-guzzling American SUV's are now producing cosmic rays. In order to prevent global warming we'll need a Kyoto Treaty II to outlaw human-produced cosmic rays.

I heard a passing report toda

I heard a passing report today that said solar activity was 30% stronger today than it was in the past- ypu- 2+2 doesn't equal 4 anymore I guess. Turning up a thermostat isn't the cause of heat, it's man's exhaling- it's all our fault.

Sadly it won't matter how much scientific evidence comes out showing hte sun is hotter and reaching earth and causing the warming- we'll always be accused of causing the warming. The national geographic show last night incredibly was whining about a global cooldown that will annihilate us all in the near future. They've got all the bases covered- if we continue heating, it's our fault, if we go into antoehr iceage, or temps simply start dropping 1/1000'th of a degree, it's our fault according to htse nutjobs.

I give up- man is accused of evils whether the weather heats or cools. Face it folks, we're all just evil earth haters. sigh

http://sacredscoop.com

Re: Cosmic rays hitting ear

Re: Cosmic rays hitting earth.

It's kinda ironic that the man-made global warming nutters are the ones already kitted out with tin-foil hats that can protect them from cosmic rays.

"Our readers don't give a rat's ass about what you think. They want facts."

Elmore Leonard, 'The Hot Kid'.

&quot;it could mean that ma

"it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate."

I love this line... aparently even the scientists who deny man-made global warming yet still believe in some form of global warming think that we can some how stop the sun from emitting rays or change the composition of the atmosphere which will some how stop global warming. Right... and i can make laser beams shoot out of my eyes.