SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the failure-to-maintain-the-deflector-shields dept.
New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an "umbrella effect."
When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth's last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth's climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.
The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth's climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @02:31AM (6 children)
Anthropomorphic climate change not supported by experiance
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20417085 [ycombinator.com]
Suppressed article : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf [arxiv.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @03:08AM
Crap article. Claimed to prove something, proved nothing; I gonna charge you for the 15mins I wasted with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @03:13AM
Whats this have to do with tfa?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 12 2019, @12:00PM (2 children)
That would be no. No experience, much less valid, scientific evidence, has been presented to support anything of that sort.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday July 12 2019, @04:09PM (1 child)
That's an overstatement. There *has* been evidence that anthropogenic warming is not important. It wasn't very convincing, and there were alternative explanations, but don't overstate the case. There has also been evidence that tremendously overstates the effect. I'm not seriously expecting a 1 km rise in sea level. (I think someone got a decimal point wrong on than one.)
OTOH, there has been a systematic bias to understate the effect of anthropogenic warming. Often from benign motives. ("If we tell the the real estimate they'll disregard it.") The usual technique is to collect a wide spread of model results, and discard the high end ones as "unrealistic". Well, at least that's what the IPCC did.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 13 2019, @05:33AM
Even if AGW is purely delusion and hysteria, there are tens of billions of dollars each year in spending to demonstrate that it is important. Rather, if you are claiming that there's evidence that it is insignificant compared to natural sources, one merely needs stronger counterevidence to disregard the evidence. Here, the best you can say is that "It wasn't very convincing, and there were alternative explanations". Meanwhile we have evidence of substantial human contributions to CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (for example, via distribution of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, indicating a strong geological source for the carbon, such as fossil fuel burning) as well as pretty reliable radiative models of the atmosphere for determining what the short term heating effects of such greenhouse gases should be.
It would be interesting to know why the IPCC ignored the supposedly strong probability that the Earth's climate is sensitive enough in the long term to greenhouse gases increases that it may have already blown through the threshold that they set for limiting the need for adaptation to climate change. I suspect the primary reason is because that distracts from the narrative of climate change mitigation through the spending of tens of billions of dollars a year.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by nitehawk214 on Friday July 12 2019, @02:17PM
Lemme guess, you are going to bitch that the "offtopic" downmods you are getting are proof that you are being suppressed.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh