Comment what an annoying article (Score 1) 548
so I click through to the article, hoping to see an interesting technical discussion of cosmic-ray fluxes, ionization, and climactic effects.
But what I get is a long ideological/political rant, wrapping up with a "BUY MY NEW BOOK!!!1!" bit of crap.
Sheesh. Talk about false advertising.
#1. Yes, ionization can cause clound condensation. It's been known since the 20's, or even earlier. Try looking up "cloud chamber". The fact that some Danish guy set up a little cloud-chamber in his basement is NOT major news! You can buy little kits for doing this stuff for $100 or so. It's a high-school science project, fercryinoutloud!
#2. The question is whether ionization is the DOMINANT mechanism, or a small contributor, for meterological cloud formation. And the linked article doesn't even begin to address this.
#3. Yes, there are correlations between weather and cosmic-ray fluxes. There were underground experiments in central italy (more or less directly east of Rome) that showed a correlation between cosmic-ray flux and the weather two weeks later in Venice (much further north). Wow! Cosmic-rays cause that? No they don't, both are affected by the average temperature of the atmosphere, with the two-week lag coming from the way seasonal changes differ from south to north.
#4. There's a fair amount of fluctuation in the SOLAR cosmic-ray flux, the stuff that causes auroral activity. But those are low-energy particles, and stop rather high up in the atmosphere (the ionosphere), well above any clouds or other weather. They do produce 14C (via (p,n) reactions on atmospheric 14N), so the various 14C dendrochronology studies gives some relevant data about long-term variations. But in any case, if the SOLAR cosmic-ray fluxes where driving the Earth's weather, you'd see a VERY strong 11-year cycle. You don't.
#5. The higher-energy cosmic-rays that penetrate to the toposphere and below are known to be extra-solar origin (they're amazingly isotropic), but their exact source is not known with any great certainty. What can be said with great certainty, as a result of decades of measurement, is that the flux of these high-energy cosmic-rays is constant, once you take into account the varying attenuation effects from the atmosphere (with its thickness changing with temperature and pressure).
Whatever is (or isn't) causing global warming, it isn't the cosmic-rays. Those that wish to place the blame on cosmic-rays are either ignorant, disingenuous, or both.
But what I get is a long ideological/political rant, wrapping up with a "BUY MY NEW BOOK!!!1!" bit of crap.
Sheesh. Talk about false advertising.
#1. Yes, ionization can cause clound condensation. It's been known since the 20's, or even earlier. Try looking up "cloud chamber". The fact that some Danish guy set up a little cloud-chamber in his basement is NOT major news! You can buy little kits for doing this stuff for $100 or so. It's a high-school science project, fercryinoutloud!
#2. The question is whether ionization is the DOMINANT mechanism, or a small contributor, for meterological cloud formation. And the linked article doesn't even begin to address this.
#3. Yes, there are correlations between weather and cosmic-ray fluxes. There were underground experiments in central italy (more or less directly east of Rome) that showed a correlation between cosmic-ray flux and the weather two weeks later in Venice (much further north). Wow! Cosmic-rays cause that? No they don't, both are affected by the average temperature of the atmosphere, with the two-week lag coming from the way seasonal changes differ from south to north.
#4. There's a fair amount of fluctuation in the SOLAR cosmic-ray flux, the stuff that causes auroral activity. But those are low-energy particles, and stop rather high up in the atmosphere (the ionosphere), well above any clouds or other weather. They do produce 14C (via (p,n) reactions on atmospheric 14N), so the various 14C dendrochronology studies gives some relevant data about long-term variations. But in any case, if the SOLAR cosmic-ray fluxes where driving the Earth's weather, you'd see a VERY strong 11-year cycle. You don't.
#5. The higher-energy cosmic-rays that penetrate to the toposphere and below are known to be extra-solar origin (they're amazingly isotropic), but their exact source is not known with any great certainty. What can be said with great certainty, as a result of decades of measurement, is that the flux of these high-energy cosmic-rays is constant, once you take into account the varying attenuation effects from the atmosphere (with its thickness changing with temperature and pressure).
Whatever is (or isn't) causing global warming, it isn't the cosmic-rays. Those that wish to place the blame on cosmic-rays are either ignorant, disingenuous, or both.
