Climate change -- research suggests it is not a swindle

Apr 03, 2008

New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows no reliable connection between the cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover.

Lauded and criticised for offering a possible way out of the dangers of man made climate change, UK TV Channel 4's programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle", broadcast in 2007, suggested that global warming is due to a decrease in cosmic rays over the last hundred years.

This would cause a decrease in the production of low clouds allowing more heat from the sun to warm the Earth and cause global warming.

Research published today, Thursday 3 April, in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters shows how a team from Lancaster and Durham Universities sought a means to prove the correlation between the ionizing cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover.

Previous research had shown a possible hint of such a correlation, using the results of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, and this had been used to propose that global warming was all down to cosmic rays.

The new research shows that change in cloud cover over the Earth does not correlate to changes in cosmic ray intensity. Neither does it show increases and decreases during the sporadic bursts and decreases in the cosmic ray intensity which occur regularly.

One such very large burst caused the magnetic storm which blacked out the power in Quebec in 1989.

Professors Sloan from Lancaster University and Wolfendale from Durham University write, "No evidence could be found of changes in the low cloud cover from known changes in the cosmic ray ionization rate."

Source: Institute of Physics

Explore further: New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Young sun's violent history solves meteorite mystery

Jul 01, 2014

(Phys.org) —Astronomers using ESA's Herschel space observatory to probe the turbulent beginnings of a Sun-like star have found evidence of mighty stellar winds that could solve a puzzling meteorite mystery ...

CLOUD sees through the haze

Jun 11, 2014

The CLOUD (Cosmic Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) experiment at CERN, which is studying whether cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on aerosols and clouds, is also tackling one of the most challenging ...

New molecules around old stars

Jun 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —Using ESA's Herschel space observatory, astronomers have discovered that a molecule vital for creating water exists in the burning embers of dying Sun-like stars.

XMM-Newton reveals cosmic collision in the Bullet Group

Jun 09, 2014

(Phys.org) —Despite the large distances between them, galaxies rarely exist in isolation. They are mostly found in large assemblies known as groups and clusters. Groups are the smallest gatherings, containing ...

Image: Pulsar encased in a supernova bubble

Jun 02, 2014

(Phys.org) —Massive stars end their lives with a bang: exploding as spectacular supernovas, they release huge amounts of mass and energy into space. These explosions sweep up any surrounding material, creating ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 15

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Ninderthana
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 03, 2008
I see that the climate alarmist sheep dominate this forum.

Ten years from now when the Earth starts to significantly cool, the public perception of Science is going to be so badly damaged that it will take decades to recover and semblance of respect.

Our research institute has the concrete evidence to show that Earth's climate will cool over the next two to three decades, most likley reaching its coolest temperatures in the 2030's.

This will be published in the one of the few remaining peer-reviewed journals that hasn't be muzzled by the climate warming alarmists.

Unfortunately, it will take years before the current wave of pseudo-science called "human induced global warming" will be recognised for the complete fraud that it is.

By then, however, the damage will be done.
earls
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2008
Hah. Agreed.

"the public perception of Science is going to be so badly damaged"

lol, give me a break though. The public perception of science?! Like it has any respect or credibility in the public's eyes now.

and this bs global warming research is just the tip of the iceberg.

ITER
gravity driven cosmos
god particles

the non-sense is endless. but to the public, none of this even exists in their mind, so no real damage is done.
marjon
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2008
No reliable connection between CO2 and changing temperatures.

Why is that not a headline?

mikiwud
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2008
This is just a propaganda denial from those who did not read (ignored or thought that no-one else had read) the original theory.This article says that the cosmic rays FROM THE SUN have no effect on cloud cover.
The original theory proposes that the MAGNETIC variation between high and low sunspot numbers effecting the cosmic rays from deep space reaching earth.
Higher sunspots=more magetism=shields earth from some of the cosmic rays=less clouds=warmer Earth(less heat reflected back to space) and vice versa.
This would be a gradual thing not obvious by direct short term observation.
The relationship between sunspots and Earths temperature variations are well documented.Even back to the 19th century grain prices were noted to vary with sunspot intensity.The cosmic ray/sunspot theory is to explain the known relationship between temp and sunspots.
johanfprins
2.6 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2008
If you soil your environment you should not be surprised when you die like a squealing pig in your own effluent. I would like to breath healthy clean air. This will not be possible in future unless we use the atmosphere a renewable asset; instead of our sewage dump.
NigelW
3.4 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2008
I really think that its very kind of Professors Sloan and Wolfendale to have bothered to do this research at all. The Cosmic Ray cause has been thoroughly debunked so many times already this is surely (faint hope!) the last nail in its ethereal coffin!

But obviously there are those who need this sort of blather as a form of comfort blanket and they are entitled to its reassurance for a while. As long as when we have to man the lifeboats they dont try and push their way to the front. But that would be too much to wish for, wouldnt it!
mikiwud
2.1 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2008
I think we all missed the headline "Climate Change--Research suggests it is not a swindle"
Its the first time it has been admitted that it could be by the main stream media.For it to be brought up by the "enemy" suggests a feeling of guilt."Perhaps the lady protests too much".
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2008
If anyone really KNEW what was going to happen as far as our climate changing there wouldn't be a debate now, would there? Given the disappearance of glacial ice worldwide and the diminished sea ice in the arctic, I have to laugh at anyone who continues to profess the earth in general is cooling. However I live in southern Ontario and this is the first winter since I was 10 that we have still had snow on the ground in April...
jburchel
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2008
Global warming is so stupid. When was the last time somebody had to publish an article declaring that relativity was not a swindle? It isn't science at all. It is just a bunch of communists who can't get away with praising communism anymore so they find another excuse to hate industry and productivity and demand we all revert to native status (except them, of course, who regularly jet across the ocean in private jets to climate conferences and global warming/anti-war movie premiers)... Cool to see a lot of good comments on this one, and interesting that the ones with high ratings are all pretty much aligned against the article. Maybe the people are finally realizing the emperor has no clothes?
godlyfrog
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2008
Global warming is actually two fights in one. First, it's the attempt to find a cause for large-scale changes in weather patterns, and failing due to the many results. Second, it's the fight between alarmists who have the self-destructive urge to blame humanity for everything, and those who are smart enough to realize that while the changes are happening, there's no proof of how or why, and are thus waiting for that answer.
Yes, pollution is bad, but that doesn't mean we should immediately tear down society. Perhaps we should take a scientific approach and just wait and see?
vlam67
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2008
Let's wait until the Arctic, Antartic, glacial ice all melt down, a few more Katrinas for good measure, before we start thinking about holding press conferences for suggesting the agenda for planning the researches that will be peer reviewed by all factions to achieve the unquestionable consensus that something is happening which could be bad for our planet. Preventative measures are logically based on estimates of the future, and therefore will not be 100% accurate, which are what get arguments going. Let's wait until the case is terminal, then we can be totally satisfied and sure.
menkaur
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2008
climate change probably is not a swindle.... there is no such thing as "stabile climate". it has always changed ... now it continues to change... and some religious stupidians see armageddon in it, and would like to take responsibility before god or something ... the proof is not needed... and now we have to PROOF that they are not right... it would be nice to see some proof that co2 _is causing_ the global warming, not the opposite ...
it seems that current climatology mainstream is nothing more then a religion
zevkirsh
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2008
man made global climate change is real--whether it's globbal warming or coolling, it is a fact that man affects the climate. BUT the only truth to know is that the more we waste our time worrying about man made change that is inevitable , the worse it will get. the market solves many problems, and this is a great example. if we simply find the cheapest energy sources as quickly as possible we'll be better off than we are worrying about climate change, even if that means using more oil but only more efficiently/miserly than before and just not being able to afford enough of it, without necessarily forcing a socialist market for aleternative energy sources that are jsut not affordable.
bfreewithrp
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2008
I believe the world must begin to focus all its efforts on the real problem.
http://www.quazen...is.51904
Al Gore's Decree on Global Warming is Not Our Only Crisis
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2009
if we simply find the cheapest energy sources as quickly as possible we'll be better off
brilliant - dirty coal is the cheapest, AFAIK.

Increasing earth atmosphere's levels of GHG's is the stupidest experiment mankind has ever conducted with the only spaceship we know of which is capable of supporting our species. Deserves to go extinct.