Yahoo 知識+ 將於 2021 年 5 月 4 日 (美國東岸時間) 停止服務,而 Yahoo 知識+ 網站現已轉為僅限瀏覽模式。其他 Yahoo 資產或服務,或你的 Yahoo 帳戶將不會有任何變更。你可以在此服務中心網頁進一步了解 Yahoo 知識+ 停止服務的事宜,以及了解如何下載你的資料。

Jeff M
Lv 7
Jeff M 發問於 EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 8 年前

The importance of cosmic rays in climate science?

Shifting cosmic ray intensity has been thought to be a contributor to global warming since the 1970s/80s. The cosmic ray flux is heightened in periods of low solar activity. This can be seen in measurements.

http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/Misc/neut...

http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm

Jasper Kirkby has been hard at work at CERN attempting to find a link between the two.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/ab...

There was recently news concerning a study to be released by Svensmark claiming that shifting cosmic ray intensity can account for over half of what is currently attributable to anthropogenic forcing.

http://www.dtu.dk/english/News/Nyhed?id={ABB2F1B4-...

Low level cloud cover over the last solar cycle has actually increased corresponding with increased cosmic ray intensity.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosm...

Curious what you make of this.

更新:

If you look at figure 2 in the lief link you will see that, thought low level cloud cover may be somewhat linked to cosmic ray input, it seems to follow an internal source of variation much better. That being the PDO. Though the time period is quite short.

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpe...

更新 2:

No John/Kano I'm not saying it is the Sun. I am aware the Sun influences global climate. It has many times in the past. Some instances include the MWP, the LIA, and various other times. I am aware that more studies need to be done in cosmic rays. I am skeptical that they are as great a game changer as Svensmark claims. Data does not support his contention either. They play a small role but what I am looking at says it is negligible.

11 個解答

相關度
  • 匿名
    8 年前
    最愛解答

    I wonder if Svensmark has considered the following;

    1. Cosmic rays are not the only way to seed clouds.

    2. If the initial effect of fewer cosmic rays is fewer cloud, there will also be less rain.

    3. Less rain means more dust.

    4. More dust means clouds are seeded.

    5. What I have described is a negative feedback mechanism to cosmic ray forcing.

    That does not mean that cosmic rays do not have a strong effect on temperature and precipitation. Negative feedbacks often have long lag times, resulting in cyclical behavior.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_windup

    However, over the last 30 years, cosmic rays have been trending in the wrong direction to be responsible for recent warming.

    "While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at their highest on record."

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-gl...

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_GCRsvsTemps...

  • 8 年前

    If you really want to understand his theories, you should read his book, The Chilling Stars. Get the revised edition it answers the critics response to his theories 2008 I believe. Its very interesting and informative. Try youtubeing his documentary, the cloud mystery. Not as informative but good. I think you are just interested in criticizing him, is that true? Never mind with the book save some money no one has succesfully done so in a published paper.

  • 8 年前

    You see, you are just like the deniers you denigrate so much. A scientist says something and you turn all sceptical!

    More seriously, Svensmark is trying hard and should be allowed to continue his research but I have to say, the jury is still out on his conclusions. He may discover something else interesting along the way.

    He still needs an as yet undiscovered chemical feedback effect, though.

  • john m
    Lv 4
    8 年前

    Hi Jeff I've tried to point you in the right direction many times If you want to move forward in your research you need to read the links provided http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Ielect.htm... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy) and http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/technical/p1... these processes are the reason why these work http://www.australianrain.com.au/technology/howitw... and http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/P... These are NOT theories they are being carried out right now to help adjust the electric potential of the atmosphere We pump tera watts of man made electrical energy into the atmosphere every second of the day and night 24/7 through our wireless com's and remote sensing With all the man made antennas placed at altitude don't you see were altering the natural point charges http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electri...

  • ?
    Lv 7
    8 年前

    The fact that we still don't have a clear picture of their impact immediately implies that impact is relatively minor compared to other factors.

    In any case the rays are 'galactic cosmic rays'. These have nothing to do with our sun.

  • 8 年前

    Although cosmic rays do cause nucleation in a bubble chamber, there are two fundamental problems with the cosmic ray hypothesis. First, the effect depends on the relative humidity and the concentration of dust particles. Dust damps out any cosmic ray effect. Human activity has changed the concentration and composition of dust in the atmosphere, so that a small pre-industrial effect would be much smaller after industrialization. Secondly, the total amount of energy carried by cosmic rays is miniscule. A physical mechanism with a very large amplification is needed to cause a measurable effect. A physical mechanism for amplification has not been demonstrated in the lab or shown to exist in nature. I would look for long-period biological processes such as grasshopper swarms in North Africa as a source of a periodic atmospheric perturbation instead. Correlation alone does not mean there is a causal link. The correlation between cloud cover and Nigerian princes offering a reward for lost treasures could be just as good as the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays.

  • 8 年前

    Svensmark previously has had to retract his claims about solar activity driving global warming. The link you give does not say he is claiming now that gamma rays from other stars are causing HALF of global warming, but we should be wary of his exaggerated claims. Previously it was that solar activity is causing all of global warming until he was busted by Mike Lockwood and other solar scientists, and Svensmark then admitted that the effects of solar activities were a very small, marginal component in climate change. Now he is claiming it is gamma rays from outside the solar system. The guy is clearly on the cutting edge of new theories of astronomical causes of weather and climate, but he exaggerates the importance of his findings in his quest for fame.

  • Kano
    Lv 7
    8 年前

    Hey Jeff are you saying it is the sun

    Just look at this graph and you can see how solar ap index matches to our rise in earths temperature.

    http://www.ips.gov.au/Images/Educational/Magnetic%...

  • gcnp58
    Lv 7
    8 年前

    It's likely a small effect and if it is detectable under optimal conditions, global climate has been so perturbed by the increase in forcing from anthropogenic CO2 trying to see that correlation now is like trying to detect air motions due to termite farts in the middle of a hurricane.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    8 年前

    look at everything except the obvious: Greenhouse gases. Maybe it's aliens, insects, god.

還有問題嗎?立即提問即可得到解答。