|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 21, 2011 10:01:02 GMT 1
Paper published by India's Environment Ministry on Monday. Physicist U.R. Rao says carbon emission impact is lower than IPCC claim The contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent. The continuing increase in solar activity has caused a 9 per cent decrease in cosmic ray intensity over the last 150 years, which results in less cloud cover, which in turn results in less albedo radiation being reflected back to the space, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature. While the impact of cosmic rays on climate change has been studied before, Dr. Rao’s paper quantifies their contribution to global warming and concludes that “the future prediction of global warming presented by IPCC’s fourth report requires a relook to take into the effect due to long term changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity.” More here www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article1107174.ece |
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jan 21, 2011 10:24:48 GMT 1
There are several things wrong with that hypothesis. For one, although cosmic rays have fallen over the last 150 years, they have increased over the last 30 while the temperature has risen: (note the reversed scale on the first graph). www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htmSecondly, the cloud cover anomaly is no longer correlated with cosmic ray intensity. And "Another analysis scrutinizes the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover and finds several discrepancies. As cosmic radiation shows greater variation in high latitudes, one would expect larger changes in cloud cover in polar regions. This is not observed. Examining the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl, ionization from the radioactivity would be expected to produce an increase in cloud cover. There is no evident increase in cloud cover following the accident (Sloan 2007). Even if these difficulties can be resolved and the causality link between cosmic rays and cloud formation is proven, this would mean cosmic rays would have been imposing a cooling influence on climate over the last few decades." |
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 21, 2011 11:19:06 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 21, 2011 12:02:25 GMT 1
I wonder why Dr Rao didn't twig that, Eamonn?
Perhaps you should write to him and alert him to the skeptical science crib sheet. He could have saved himself some time and effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 21, 2011 12:26:36 GMT 1
There are many natural impacts on climate that are now being discussed by researchers since the Climategate debacle freed up the channels of communication and ALL of them are nibbling away at the orthodoxy that anthropogenic CO2 is the main driver of warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jan 21, 2011 12:48:53 GMT 1
... ALL of them are nibbling away at the orthodoxy that anthropogenic CO2 is the main driver of warming. Nibbling will not get you very far if you don't have any teeth! If you think that Rao's claim holds water then why not explain to us what the graphs on my 'crib sheet' say about the relationship between temperature, cosmic rays and cloud cover? And how is this compatible with his claim? |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 21, 2011 12:53:02 GMT 1
The relationship between temperature, cosmic rays and cloud cover are not understood so any assertion is mere speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 21, 2011 20:38:41 GMT 1
Well put, Mr Smith.
The fact that there are different interpretations of the same phenomena is proof that the science is not settled nor even understood. It is not my job to do the science for you Eamonn or to demolish hypotheses. It is merely sufficient that I have an open mind about them and am happy to spread information around the internet that I find interesting and thought-provoking myself.
|
|
