NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1153&Itemid=2)

I always find new ideas interesting (well usually, I think you can pretty much ignore 99% of stuff to do with psychology). I will be curious to see however, to what extent this ides becomes generally accepted and also whether or not this phenomenon will be incorporated into other climate studies to better refine the current estimates of global warming, and to what extent they are driven by carbon emissions.

And if nothing else it does seem to be an interesting way of linking the maunder minimum and the little ice age.

Link (http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1153&Itemid=2)

I always find new ideas interesting (well usually, I think you can pretty much ignore 99% of stuff to do with psychology). I will be curious to see however, to what extent this ides becomes generally accepted and also whether or not this phenomenon will be incorporated into other climate studies to better refine the current estimates of global warming, and to what extent they are driven by carbon emissions.

And if nothing else it does seem to be an interesting way of linking the maunder minimum and the little ice age.

This isn't really that new a theory. There have been links drawn between a star that exploded several hundred million years ago and released a gamma burst that hit the earth, and a mass extinction and rapid climate change that occurred around the time the burst would have hit earth.

The likely possibility is that this gamma ray burst (incidentally a burst that hit the atmosphere for a whopping 10 seconds) caused enough damage to the atmosphere to disrupt climate and weather patterns drastically.

Try again, before the c02 chokes me to death.

Try again, before the c02 chokes me to death.

:confused: :confused:

:confused: :confused:

Not you, though I think you missed some of the implications of the precis.

I would just like some other comments.

You know, I'm going to start a new thread called: Greenhouse gases, don't you feel like wankers now then?

Yes. Apparently no one ever wants to actually hear new information. Ever.

Yes. Apparently no one ever wants to actually hear new information. Ever.
It's just their way.

Bush himself invented global warming while sniffing coke in a garage in 1976. After doing 3 lines, he randomly put together a machine out of old car parts, a couple pack of cigarrets, a bible, a dead dog, a coffe maker, and a bathtub. Then he took a royal shit in it. He left it out side and hit the switch. it began to emit quite a foul oder and a orange gas, 30 years later, we have global warming.

It's an interesting idea; I would be surprised if our climate were not affected by events from outside of our own solar system like variations in cosmic rays. If anything, it might be a helpful way to monitor, predict and possibly modulate the trends in global climate change. I guess it will have to be further tested to see if the theory fits the evidence and if it can make meaningful predictions of climate; if anything, it might provide us with some valuable information in to the macro-scale workings of global climate and climate change.

One concern, of course, is that this information gets sidelined or rejected due to the focus on CO2 emissions in regard to climate change; we need to control our emissions, but we can't reject potential additional explanations for climate change because of a focus on CO2.

One more bash at this, then.

Any comments? Or has the underground not yet given you a talking points fact sheet, so you'll just ignore it.

And for the record. My position is: I DON'T KNOW.

Has anyone read the paper? Do the authors suggest that current climactic changes are partially or primarily driven by cosmic rays, or is it only some historical climactic events.

Link (http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1153&Itemid=2)

I always find new ideas interesting (well usually, I think you can pretty much ignore 99% of stuff to do with psychology). I will be curious to see however, to what extent this ides becomes generally accepted and also whether or not this phenomenon will be incorporated into other climate studies to better refine the current estimates of global warming, and to what extent they are driven by carbon emissions.

And if nothing else it does seem to be an interesting way of linking the maunder minimum and the little ice age.

Looks like an interesting read - I can't get hold of the paper online, but it's in the university library, so I'll have a look today. From what I can gather, this makes no comment on anthropogenic climate change, and appears to be looking more at large scale changes. Still a valid area, of course.

I’m fairly sceptical of this theory particularly when it mentions snowball Earth which is largely accepted to be because of the land masses forming at the equator furthermore like with gamma ray burst killing the dinosaurs there really isn’t any proof you can provide

Or has the underground not yet given you a talking points fact sheet, so you'll just ignore it.

ooooh a tantrum

This may be a factor involved in Climate Change, but it is almost certainly not the factor. Human agency is the one factor that we can adjust, (and, in my opinion, one of the more important factors), so that is the one we should be most concerned with.

this ain't new - svensmark has been making this argument for over a decade.

some criticism:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/


http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg

there are probably many natural phenomena that can cause catastrophic climate change and extinctions....but when there is a "smoking gun" such as rising Co2 emissions why look for more unlikely causes?...

especially since there hasn't actually been an increase in cosmic rays recently. which would seem to rob it of a tiny bit of its explanatory force.

Link (http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1153&Itemid=2)

I always find new ideas interesting (well usually, I think you can pretty much ignore 99% of stuff to do with psychology). I will be curious to see however, to what extent this ides becomes generally accepted and also whether or not this phenomenon will be incorporated into other climate studies to better refine the current estimates of global warming, and to what extent they are driven by carbon emissions.

And if nothing else it does seem to be an interesting way of linking the maunder minimum and the little ice age.

there are probably many natural phenomena that can cause catastrophic climate change and extinctions....but when there is a "smoking gun" such as rising Co2 emissions why look for more unlikely causes?...