Earths albedo controlled by cosmic rays

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theory proposed by Henrik Svensmark regarding the influence of cosmic rays on Earth's albedo and temperature variations. Participants explore the relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, cloud formation, and global warming, as well as the acceptance of CO2 as the primary driver of climate change.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants outline Svensmark's theory that high solar activity reduces cosmic rays, leading to decreased low cloud formation and increased Earth's albedo, which could contribute to temperature rises.
  • Others challenge the validity of Svensmark's theory, asserting that cosmic rays do not seed low clouds and that greenhouse gases are widely accepted as the primary cause of global warming.
  • One participant questions the nature of cosmic rays, suggesting they are primarily electromagnetic energy and not responsible for cloud seeding.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between different types of particles in cosmic rays, noting that protons and alpha particles are significant contributors.
  • Concerns are raised about the perception of Svensmark's work as "crank" science and the implications of labeling legitimate research as such.
  • Some participants express a belief that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, with varying degrees of acceptance for CO2 as the main driver.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of views, with no consensus on the validity of Svensmark's theory or the extent to which CO2 is accepted as the cause of global warming. The discussion remains unresolved, highlighting differing opinions and interpretations of the evidence.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the limitations of the discussion, including the complexity of the scientific issues and the potential biases in the acceptance of alternative theories. There are references to the challenges faced by non-AGW proponents in gaining recognition within the scientific community.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the intersections of climate science, astrophysics, and the ongoing debates surrounding global warming theories.

henxan
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
The Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark has been scorn for several years now because of his alternative explanation of how Earth's temperature varies. His theory states this:

High solar activity is a sign of a strong magnetic field from the sun
->
Strong magnetic field from the sun will decrease the amount of cosmic rays/particles which enters Earth's atmosphere
->
As these particles are "grains" for condensation of low clouds, a reduction of the incoming particles will result in less low altitude cloud formation (Low clouds are an important factor in reflecting suns incoming energy to earth, that is, increasing Earth's albedo.)
->
Earths temperature rise

This was the short explanation. The complete text is called "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" [A&G February 2007 - Vol.48].

At the moment it seems like the IPCC has managed to quiet down any alternative explanations to CO2 driven Global Warming.

There must be a people scattered throughout the world who are members on this forum, a lot of them also attending universities/colleges. So what I was wondering about is:
Is there a general acceptance for CO2 as the cause for GW?
Are Henrik Svensmarks theories well known?
 
Last edited:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Cosmic rays don't seed low clouds, they can be seeded by smoke and pollution particles but not by muons - I call quackery!

There is pretty much acceptance that greenhouse gases (CO2 is the most common but not necessarily the greatest overall effect) cause global warming.
 
mgb_phys said:
Cosmic rays don't seed low clouds, they can be seeded by smoke and pollution particles but not by muons - I call quackery!

There is pretty much acceptance that greenhouse gases (CO2 is the most common but not necessarily the greatest overall effect) cause global warming.

Hmm.. Have you even read any of svensmarks papers?

The cosmic rays referred to are mainly protons (90%) and alfa particles (9%), in energy ranges from 0.01GeV and 15GeV. The theory is based on these rays ionizing and "catalyzing" the formation of condensation cores {"Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud formation - a missing link in solar-climate relationship" [Henrik Svensmark and Egil Friis-Christensen "Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol.59, 1997]}.

What are your countrary sources? And, did you even read my questions?
 
I'm sorry that was rude.

A post by a PF member with a low post count
Suggesting that GW doesn't happen
Mentioning a scientist no-one had heard about
With a newly coined term for a new theory
With only a partial reference to a paper ( what is A&G ?)
Alleging a conspiracy by a government/internal body to cover it up

Tends to trip the crank detector !
 
mgb_phys said:
I'm sorry that was rude.

A post by a PF member with a low post count
Suggesting that GW doesn't happen
Mentioning a scientist no-one had heard about
With a newly coined term for a new theory
With only a partial reference to a paper ( what is A&G ?)
Alleging a conspiracy by a government/internal body to cover it up

Tends to trip the crank detector !

Apology accepted!

I have not, neither has Henrik Svensmark, stated that there is no global warming. The clue is: "what is the source of the global warming" or "what controls the temperature on earth."

I have not alleged there is a conspiracy, people tend to do non-logical things without any conspiracy involved.

I would appreciate that people read "cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" first:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/...lications/svensmark_2007cosmoClimatology.pdf"

The theory is not new, it was speculated there was a connection in the late in 1980ties. The first papers materializing the theory were published in the late 1990ties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mgb_phys said:
With only a partial reference to a paper ( what is A&G ?)

Oh, I forgot. A&G: Astronomy and Geophysics
 
Strong magnetic field from the sun will decrease the amount of cosmic rays/particles which enters Earth's atmosphere

...What particles? Aren't cosmic rays almost entirely electromagnetic energy, which doesn't seed clouds? Have I missed something from astrophysics?
 
No cosmic rays are mostly muons or the decay products of more energetic particles.
Particles can seed clouds (as in a cloud chamber) how much effect they have on an entire planets atmosphere is debatable.
 
mgb_phys said:
A post by a PF member with a low post count
Suggesting that GW doesn't happen
Mentioning a scientist no-one had heard about
With a newly coined term for a new theory
With only a partial reference to a paper ( what is A&G ?)
Alleging a conspiracy by a government/internal body to cover it up
BACK THE TRUCK UP HERE

Earth in physicsforums has a lot of this type of stuff. Svensmark has been discussed in many threads here.

...What particles? Aren't cosmic rays almost entirely electromagnetic energy, which doesn't seed clouds? Have I missed something from astrophysics?
Cosmic rays are energetic particles flying around in space
Wikipedia
Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons (beta minus particles). The term "ray" is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.
 
  • #10
for those that haven't seen it. It's in 6 parts. Was a TV documentary. I find it very disappointing it took him 16 months to get his work published. It's all politics. CERN has an experiment upcoming.

You will have to copy and paste as I can't post url's.


youtube(dot)com/watch?v=gkgEUN_TyoA

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=mWVhYbMvXBU

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=q3uB3vJIq4I

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=QmkhGcfKTFw

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=AmrfWfAgKCs

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=MCRCoKQRbuk
 
  • #11
henxan said:
So what I was wondering about is:
Is there a general acceptance for CO2 as the cause for GW?
Are Henrik Svensmarks theories well known?

When you browse through the threads here on the Earth forum, you will see a rather balanced approach, and different people have different stances on it. It is not the "anti-AGW bashing" that you might expect. I think people are somewhat divided on the subject (as any good frontier research must be !)

That said, we tend to ban everything which is conspiracy theory - but that doesn't preclude the knowledge that no-AGW proponents have right now more difficulties getting heard than pro-AGW proponents which are on the "politically-correct" wave. That said, it is not because they have a harder time getting published that that automatically means that they must be right :smile:

My personal view is that the IPCC "is on something" but oversells it. You cannot deny all of the science work that goes in it, but I think the scientific issues are still far from "settled and certain so that anyone doubting it is a crank", but it is nevertheless suggestive.

Other people here have other opinions. You'll find a whole spectrum.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Last edited:

Similar threads

Is Cosmic Ray Influence on Cloud Cover and Climate Overlooked?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad Are Cosmic Rays Intensifying Across the Globe?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Unveiling the Mystery of Ice Ages: The Role of Galactic Cosmic Rays
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
13K
Graduate What Causes a Shift in Cosmic Ray Distribution on Earth?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Writing: Input Wanted Different Cosmic Disasters for Different Plot Points
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Some questions about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
Global Warming: Unraveling the Confusion
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Strong negative feedback in Climate
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
E-mail to JV (Global Warming discussion)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad What is the new source of space radiation discovered near Earth?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
12K