Cosmic ray theory for climate change

[Cowperson]

University of Ottawa professor offers an explanation for climate change.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...2a04d8&k=39544

Cowperson

[Hakan]

Radiation that hits the Earth causes warming. Wow.

So instead of the Sun it's Cosmic rays. The point is that the energy isn't radiated back as much as it used to be.

The CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't allow the radiation to the leave the Earth. The CO2 that we belch out by the billions of tons per annum. But I mean logically, that has nothing, nothing, to do with it right?

edit: although his argument seems to point out that the more rays the more cloud cover which creates a negative albedo effect. Meh sure I guess. But I mean it seems like we're focusing on a, fourth, fifth, sixth order variable of warming. Whereas CO2 clearly is a top order variable.

[troutman]

"Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "

Gee, you think doctor? Go back to mad scientist school.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by troutman

"Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "

Gee, you think doctor? Go back to mad scientist school.

In fairness, if you read farther than the first two paragraphs you'd find he's a little bit more than a mad scientist:

But Veizer's credentials make it tough to challenge his findings.

The recently retired professor still holds a research chair and supervises grad students and postdoctoral fellows. A native of Bratislava, Veizer left because Russian troops entered Czechoslovakia in 1968. He's been building up honours ever since in the field of geochemistry -- learning about Earth's past by the chemistry preserved in rocks and sediments.

The Royal Society of Canada called him "one of the most creative, innovative and productive geoscientists of our times," and added: "He has generated entirely new concepts that have proven key in our understanding the geochemical history of Earth."

He won the 1992 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, worth $2.2 million Cdn, representing the German government's highest prize for research in any field. The prize ended up financing his research.

The judges said he "has in front of his eyes the overall picture of the Earth during its entire 4.5 billion years of evolution," and he is "one of the most creative ... geologists of his time."

Cowperson

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Hakan

... But I mean it seems like we're focusing on a, fourth, fifth, sixth order variable of warming. Whereas CO2 clearly is a top order variable.

Yes, clearly. Any idiot could prove that in an afternoon!

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Hakan

edit: although his argument seems to point out that the more rays the more cloud cover which creates a negative albedo effect. Meh sure I guess. But I mean it seems like we're focusing on a, fourth, fifth, sixth order variable of warming. Whereas CO2 clearly is a top order variable.

I would like some to go back over the history of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature of the earth and prove to me that CO2 causes high temperatures, or do high temperatures cause higher CO2. This hasn't been proven yet. For the amount of CO2 people actually produce it not that much compared to the amount of total CO2

[Kybosh]

I'm still not entirely sold on this man made global warming thing. Of course human industry is pumping carbon dioxide and other gaseous material into the atmosphere and it this does have an effect. Is this the major cause as many people suggest or is it something inherent to the earth. I think most people are now familiar with the fluctuating temperatures and climates of the earth so the question is which is more influential: man or the earth? I'm gonna have to go with the earth until I'm proven wrong.

Before I get flamed here don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating uncontrolled pollution and factors such as that but I do think much of the global warming phenomena is simple fear mongering. Besides, if the ice caps melt entirely and flood the earth at least I know that we can all live on floating cities and drive jet skis a la Kevin Costner in Waterworld. Stock up on your dirt now boys!

[toonmaster]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Whereas CO2 clearly is a top order variable.

please clearly specify where it is defined that CO2 is a top order variable

the media consistently interchange the words "greenhouse gases" and "carbon dioxide" and that is just plain wrong, CO2 is not proven, there are still too many differing OPINIONS if it is a greenhouse gas or not, where as PCBs and CFCs are proven to destroy the atmosphere

I side with kybosh, I am not promoting uncontrolled pollution, there are serious health threats to the amount of pollution being produced, but the exact effect of the CO2 emmissions on the global warming phenomenon are unproven and highly varibale depending on the exact scope of the area of observation

just as a side note, because we are carbon based, and the earth is carbon based, anything and everything that is left to breakdown into its most basic, stable forms, will breakdown to CO2 and H2O, so whether it is man-made, or produced naturally, CO2 has been and always will be present within our atmosphere

[troutman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060...warmest_winter

Canada is in the closing stretch of its warmest winter in recorded history, another upswing in an apparent warming trend that supports the notion that global warming is upon us, an Environment Canada climatologist said Monday.

Winter hasn't been so warm since 1987, and this year's temperatures broke that record by 0.9 degrees.

"That's quite remarkable," Whitewood said. "We normally talk about tenths of degrees and this was almost one full degree past the previous record."
Environment Canada will spend the next year studying weather data because there's no conclusive explanation for the mild winter, he added.

Whitewood said the last 10 winters have been warmer than normal and along with this winter reflect what could be explained as global warming.
"When you talk about this kind of trend, it's sitting in very well with what our models would forecast for climate-change scenarios," he said.
"We're obviously a signatory to Kyoto so we are definitely recognizing it as a concern."


A recent international project called the Canadian Arctic Shelf Exchange Study suggested global warming has already caused irreparable damage and has left polar ice melting at a rate of about 74,000 square kilometres each year - an area about the size of Lake Superior - and has been for the last 30 years.
About 120 scientists from 11 countries were involved in the Canadian-led research project and said there should be a focus in Canada and internationally on coping with the reality of global warming and minimizing the damage.

[troutman]

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...ere_ozone.html

NASA Study Links "Smog" to Arctic Warming

In a global assessment of the impact of ozone on climate warming, scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, evaluated how ozone in the lowest part of the atmosphere (tropospheric ozone) changed surface temperatures over the past 100 years. Using the best available estimates of global emissions of the various gases that produce tropospheric ozone, the GISS computer model study reveals how much this single air pollutant and greenhouse gas has contributed to warming in specific regions of the world.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...ce_sheets.html

Impact of Climate Warming on Polar Ice Sheets Confirmed

03.08.06

In the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of the massive ice sheets covering both Greenland and Antarctica, NASA scientists confirm climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouse of ice and snow.

[Cube Inmate]

Global warming is not in dispute, Fishguy...only the root cause, which is widely accepted as being CO2 despite the lack of conclusive evidence. Do you bring up "smog" in order to support the CO2 position, or refute it? Smog isn't related to CO2, but to oxides of nitrogen and sulpher, and ozone.

Just wondering..?

[Tiger]

Please refer to it correctly as global climate change, the world is not warming for everyone.

I'll agree with Kybosh I'm not sold man has that much effect on the climate (they are still screwing over the environment, and need to fix that), but CO2 is not really an issue. Why don't people concentrate on thing like making sure every factory has scrubbers on it which would all but eliminate nitrates and sulfates which would get rid of acid rain. Lowering CO2 emission is a good idea though just because it would lower overall pollution.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Global warming is not in dispute, Fishguy...only the root cause, which is widely accepted as being CO2 despite the lack of conclusive evidence. Do you bring up "smog" in order to support the CO2 position, or refute it? Smog isn't related to CO2, but to oxides of nitrogen and sulpher, and ozone.

Just wondering..?

I'm only interested in the truth. If I find something relevant either way, I will post it. I trust the scientific method. I'm not trying to support one position or another.

"Fishguy"? How rude.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by toonmaster

please clearly specify where it is defined that CO2 is a top order variable

Well if you bothered to listen in grade 8 science class, or even did a rudimentary search on the internet you would find out that CO2 is the top order greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Without CO2 we'd be a revolving block of ice. CO2 creates the greenhouse effect (along with other trace gases but CO2 itself is the first order gas responsible.)

the media consistently interchange the words "greenhouse gases" and "carbon dioxide" and that is just plain wrong, CO2 is not proven, there are still too many differing OPINIONS if it is a greenhouse gas or not, where as PCBs and CFCs are proven to destroy the atmosphere

Sorry, you are wrong. PCBs and CFCs are also greenhouse gases but they got alot of press back in the 80s not for their greenhouse warming properties but for their propensity to destroy the ozone layer. Thankfully, the Montreal Protocol has been an effective (although not completely effective) international agreement to stop producing these chemicals.

CFCs don't get alot of attention in the climate change discussions because they are emitted by factors of thousands less than CO2. The CFC molecules create substantially more warming than CO2 molecules but they have a far shorter residence time in the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand has by far the longest residence time in the atmosphere at around 100 years, which is another reason why the debate is so focused on reducing CO2 emissions.

Finally, your opinion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is truly laughable. Read a book on the topic. Read wikipedia on the topic. Hell read anything on the topic because you look like a fool otherwise.

I side with kybosh, I am not promoting uncontrolled pollution, there are serious health threats to the amount of pollution being produced, but the exact effect of the CO2 emmissions on the global warming phenomenon are unproven and highly varibale depending on the exact scope of the area of observation

Do we need exact effects proving the relationship of CO2 to global climate change before we take action? If that is the case then we will never take action due to the huge complexity of the global climate system. This is just another stalling tactic putting off the costs and inherent sacrifices that we will all have to make in the guise of scientific rigor.

The fact of the matter is that there is a bevy of scientific consensus that increased CO2 emissions are doing something to the climate. Now we can decide to roll the dice and hedge a bet that nothing big will come of that and we can continue on our merry little way making trinkets and taking hot showers or we can err on the side of caution knowing in case the changing climate will have more than trivial effects.

As has been brought up by myself and others on this board. There is something unnatural about the billions of tons of CO2 that we emit annually into the atmosphere. To say that it is having no effect on any of the Earth's processes is naive, assinine and dangerous. To prolongue action because we don't know exactly what is going on is also dangerous not only to us but to our children, grandchildren and many species that we are the stewards of on this planet.

just as a side note, because we are carbon based, and the earth is carbon based, anything and everything that is left to breakdown into its most basic, stable forms, will breakdown to CO2 and H2O, so whether it is man-made, or produced naturally, CO2 has been and always will be present within our atmosphere

Thanks for that. Carbon certainly is not a bad thing. Anthropogenic carbon waste in the atmosphere likely is. So your point is well taken. Without Carbon in our atmosphere there would be no life on Earth. That doesn't somehow justify inaction on the climate change front.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm only interested in the truth. If I find something relevant either way, I will post it. I trust the scientific method. I'm not trying to support one position or another.

"Fishguy"? How rude.

Sounds good, Pisces-dude...I was just wondering. You mentioned something that just got me thinking---you trust the scientific method. Unfortunately, the method cannot be fully applied to things like the environment.

To be considered valid, a hypothesis should be testable and the results should be repeatable. Climate change hypotheses, though, are neither of those things. Beyond that shortcoming, these studies usually focus on only one or two variables, such as temperature vs. CO2, or ice sheet coverage over time. While I don't necessarily dispute their statistiscs, I for one believe that climate is a lot more complicated than the simple versions presented by these scientists.

There are other purely observational sciences...astronomy for example. It can suffer from some of the same issues of repeatability and testability...it's certainly not possible to repeat the formation of the solar system, or to test the theory of star formation. Those sciences have a large sample to work with though--the observable universe--which is more likely to lead to correct inferences in areas that can't be tested. Climatology, on the other hand, only has a single sample to work with, and it's pretty hard to draw accurate generalities from a single sample.

[toonmaster]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Well if you bothered to listen in grade 8 science class, or even did a rudimentary search on the internet you would find out that CO2 is the top order greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Without CO2 we'd be a revolving block of ice. CO2 creates the greenhouse effect (along with other trace gases but CO2 itself is the first order gas responsible.)

The greenhouse effect is the effect of the radiation from the sun traveling thorugh the atmosphere, and part of it being adsorbed by the earth, and part being reflected back. the reflected part is unable to escape due to the change in the frequency caused by the adsorbtion, and hence the greenhouse gases are now capable of reflecting this excess radiation back towards the earth, causing the warming effect. they are capable of measuring the reflected frequency of the radiation and applying it to the certain greenhouse gas culprits. Now i dont have links for you, rather published information i have read, stating this effect and showing that the first order variables include CH4, N20 and H2O. now that's something you will not find in your typical grade 8 science class.

Originally Posted by Hakan

Sorry, you are wrong. PCBs and CFCs are also greenhouse gases but they got alot of press back in the 80s not for their greenhouse warming properties but for their propensity to destroy the ozone layer. Thankfully, the Montreal Protocol has been an effective (although not completely effective) international agreement to stop producing these chemicals.

i did not say that PCBs and CFCs are greenhouse gases, i said they cause destruction of the atmosphere, which leads to the loss of O2 and O3, causing the high frequency, high energy, low wavelength, UV spectrum radiation un-obstructed access causing skin cancer and a whole wack of other problems

Originally Posted by Hakan

CFCs don't get alot of attention in the climate change discussions because they are emitted by factors of thousands less than CO2. The CFC molecules create substantially more warming than CO2 molecules but they have a far shorter residence time in the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand has by far the longest residence time in the atmosphere at around 100 years, which is another reason why the debate is so focused on reducing CO2 emissions.

the debate is focused around the CO2 emissions because uninformed media, public perception, and overall lack of knowledge of the gloal climate system and its complexities, which you seem to agree that this system we rely so heavily on is quite complex

Originally Posted by Hakan

Finally, your opinion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is truly laughable. Read a book on the topic. Read wikipedia on the topic. Hell read anything on the topic because you look like a fool otherwise.

actually i did not state an actual opinion, so here it is, i am not sold on the devestating effect CO2 emissions, i absolutely agree that the amount of overall pollution is ridiculous and needs to be cut down. sure CO2 has some effect on the warming trend, but there is evidence that the earth has gone through cold and warm trends as well, this could be be a warming trend. name-calling is not nessecary, i am simply stating my opinion with evidence that I have been exposed to, and tend to side with.

Originally Posted by Hakan

Do we need exact effects proving the relationship of CO2 to global climate change before we take action? If that is the case then we will never take action due to the huge complexity of the global climate system. This is just another stalling tactic putting off the costs and inherent sacrifices that we will all have to make in the guise of scientific rigor.

it is beacause of the complexties of the global system that stricter and revolutionary measures have not been taken. it is simple fact that our footprint on this planet is tiny with respect to the shear length of time the earth has extisted. the capability of earth to supporting massive quantities of one substance, in this case CO2, is unknown and probably will never be known, as well with whether the effects can be reversed or not once that extreme is met (which is whole discussion on its own)

Originally Posted by Hakan

As has been brought up by myself and others on this board. There is something unnatural about the billions of tons of CO2 that we emit annually into the atmosphere. To say that it is having no effect on any of the Earth's processes is naive, assinine and dangerous. To prolongue action because we don't know exactly what is going on is also dangerous not only to us but to our children, grandchildren and many species that we are the stewards of on this planet.

there is quite the unnatural feeling of spewing billions of CO2 into the atmosphere. but as i said in an earlier thread, the earth itself is capable of adsorbing 4 billion metric tons annually, and this number continues to rise as the CO2 values continue to rise. is there an upper limit? that is unknown, but what is known that the 3 billion tons of CO2 left in the atmosphere annually is TINY compared to the 100 billion tons adsorbed by photosynthesis annually. i agree it is a dangerous time we are in, without knowing upper limits or extreme case scenarios, thats why in my opinion i side with you in reducing our pollution amounts.

also there is quite the scientific group which tends to lead towards the fact that the, although there are some effects caused by CO2 and the global warming trend, it is not as devestating as some other scientific bases suggest

Originally Posted by Hakan

Thanks for that. Carbon certainly is not a bad thing. Anthropogenic carbon waste in the atmosphere likely is. So your point is well taken. Without Carbon in our atmosphere there would be no life on Earth. That doesn't somehow justify inaction on the climate change front.

there is no difference between anthropogenic carbon and the carbon within your average old CO2 molecule from your breath. i was simpy trying to say that with our ever growing consumption and trend to producing more and more, the amount of man-made CO2 will increase the overall CO2 atmosphere content, which by the way is only 0.033%

now there are differing opinions for sure, i am displaying the differences with Hakan's and mine here, but it is St.Patty's day and i am going to go injest some bubbly brews and create my personal contribution to greenhouse gases by expelling some nicely timed and well brewed burps!!!

CHEERS!

[Cube Inmate]

Haven't read and understood it all, but this looks like an interesting document that discusses all sorts of greenhouse gases: US EPA Doc

According to the above, water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas (as we all know, right?) and its concentration is largely unaffected by human activity. The exception may be airplane contrails, which act like excess clouds.

Just for fun, I'm going to take some of the numbers from that paper and run them through to get a better idea of how this all works

CO2 has increased by about 32% since industrialization, from 278 PPM to about 365 PPM today. Methane has increased by about 250%, but the actual amount is far lower than the actual amount of CO2: increase is from 0.7 PPM to 1.745. Both continue to increase at a proportionally similar rate. Per unit mass, methane is about 50 times more effective in terms of potential global warming than is CO2. As I said, though, it's much more rare in the atmosphere.

If I do some rough calculations with molecular mass, I get CO2 being about 2.75x the mass of CH4. Converting to relative mass from PPM gives me some interesting info on the changes since industrialization. Suppose that the combined greenhouse contribution of CO2 and CH4 at that time was normalized to 1.0 units (whatever units those are). Since then, their total contribution has increased to 1.37 -- a 37% increase. Of that increase, almost 1/4 is due to the contribution of CH4. The calculations are lost in my HP, but it looks to me like CH4 itself should be considered a significant contributor to climate change, no? Not as significant as CO2 perhaps, but it shouldn't be ignored.

[rant]

My point in all of this? Well, to waste a bit of time, actually...but I find it interesting that farting cows and decomposing garbage dumps are a significant source of warming...according to the numbers...yet this is never brought up. The only science that gets any publicity is that related to CO2...I think we deserve to be informed, and to have a real debate on these things, rather than simply have an un-economic system (Kyoto) shoved down our throats because the lefties think it's better to do something knee-jerk than to sit down for a little while and think everything through.

I'd love to see emissions of all kinds reduced, and I think it's necessary to keep us from choking to death on our own waste, but I'd rather see Canada lead with our intelligence and innovation, rather than following along on a flawed protocol because some weak-kneed politicians think that's a form of leadership.

[/rant]