Driving Another Nail into Climate Skeptics' Coffin
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07.11.07
Global warming deniers may have just lost another crucial point of recourse in their flagging campaign: according to a new study carried out by an international team of researchers, variations in solar ouput are not to blame for climate change. Indeed, just as the sun's output has been declining over the last two decades, global temperatures have been on the rise.
This directly contradicts the cosmic ray hypothesis, a theory advanced by two scientists from the Danish National Space Center which holds that cosmic rays, through the intermediary of clouds (which they help form), help cool the planet. When the rays are partially blocked by the sun during periods of intense solar activity, fewer clouds are able to form and the Earth warms as a result.
While this may have held true in the past, Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in the U.K. and Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland dismissed its impact on the current episode of climate change, stating their findings "should settle the debate." In fact, their study partially originated from Lockwood's desire to rebut a TV documentary aired earlier this year entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that prominently featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
They arrived at their conclusion by analyzing solar output and cosmic ray intensity side-by-side with the rising trend in the global average surface temperature over the last 3-4 decades. The sun, whose activity typically fluctuates on a cycle of 11 years between high and low episodes, saw its output begin to steadily decline in early 1985. Contrary to what the cosmic ray hypothesis would've predicted, temperatures continued rising, often at a faster clip than they had over the past century.
"I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around. It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game," said Lockwood, commenting on the validity of the cosmic ray hypothesis.
Climate change skeptics had often latched onto this hypothesis to argue that anthropogenic influences were not to blame for the trend in global warming. With yet another talking point shot down, it sure looks like they have their work cut out for them now (well, even more so than before).
Via ::BBC News: 'No sun link' to climate change (news website)
See also: ::Where Have All the Climate Deniers Gone?, ::Who Are They Kidding: Exxon Says Never Doubted Climate Change, ::The New Climate Poll Numbers Are In From Pew
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Global Warming Opens Northwest Passage
- Natural Disasters: The Effects of Climate Change
- Ocean's 'Poop Machines' Could Help Fight Climate Change
- Sun, Nike, Starbucks and More Meet for Climate Action
Well, it's clear. If we want to prove that global warming doesn't exist, we must heat up the sun.
I think it's important to listen to the skeptics in order to make informed decisions about climate change. This man makes some interesting points, even if it's just to bounce more ideas off of:
Celebrity Earth?
http://www.orato.com/node/2974
Celebrity Earth?
what do you guys think?
www.orato.com
Global warming is a relatively simple idea, and is verified by the majority of climatologists and scientists, its as simple as a meteorologist telling you that it will rain tomorrow; yet the same people that find their umbrella will dispute global warming news.
rob, he really doesn't - he just raises questions that are already answered or stated in such a way to make scientists' assertions look bogus.
Change is inevitable, and science is relative. There are studies to back both sides of the argument. A greener society is wise, simply due to the fact that we are forced to breath, drink, and eat the unhealthy consequences of industrial negligence. When it comes to the idea that society has the power to alter Earth's climate, I am a skeptic. Right now the issue is more political than it is scientific. And there's those pesky ice caps on mars that melted for no apparent reason. Some outrageous and a few interesting points are found on:
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/
I do think that both sides of every issue should be looked at for all environmental arguments. If one looks at just the outcome and not the origin, jumping to conclusions is simple. History is a very valid argument to use, and history shows that we (humans) have collected very little data when compared to the history of the earth. But: Stop and look around you....these cities with all this consumption, factories, lights, sound, human generated nature (landscaping)....on and on. All of it unsustained without millions of years of fosil fuel, ancient aquafers, topsoils.... of which we give back pollution, depletion, and progression (occupation). Now, anyone that has some basic understanding of ecology would agree that less plants/land/renewable landscaping and more CO2 then we had 20,50,1000 years ago would say that we are probably not moving in the right direction. CO2 is nothing when compared SO2, CH4, NOx.....they are MUCH scarier and have 10-1000 fold greater an effect on the atmosphere and trapping heat. It is funny to me that we are so focused on CO2, but I believe the reason has much more to do with showing positive gains and faking environmental progress then actually progressing toward a brighter future. Believe what you will, I will believe my eyes, and they say we need a shift in how we live, eat, work, and consume. Basically we need to simplify our lives and re:define progress (a paradigm shift)
When it comes to the idea that society has the power to alter Earth's climate, I am a skeptic.
No, you're just getting off being contrary and sticking a point in the eyes of "liberals".
Right now the issue is more political than it is scientific.
No, it's actually scientifically settled, yet somehow the people who pretend to be rational deny the science and try to make it political, all the while simply being useful idiots for the handful of people who actually profit from the extract-and-burn industries who are screwing the world out of so much money right now.
To Tex DeJésus and pdq1966: Simplifying our lifestyles to end up with a more livable world is a great ambition, but we have to face up to the fact that it just won't happen in this way. There are vastly too many vested interests and more to the point our whole society (and economic system) currently revolves around consumption.
People are totally addicted to this and won't change unless it's absolutely necessary. Climate Change, however, may in time be sufficiently scary to get the momentum going. Simplifying our lives won't do it because people just aren't interested.