Cosmic Rays vs. CO2: The Battle for Climate Change Primacy

CO2 Science Magazine ^ | September 24, 2003 | Sherwood, Keith and Craig

[PeaceBeWithYou]

New studies are continually challenging the simplistic view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that increases in the partial pressure of the air's CO2 content (pCO2) have a major, if not phenomenal, impact on earth's climate.  The most recent variant of one of these challenges is presented by Shaviv and Veizer (2003), who suggest that from two-thirds to three-fourths of the variance in earth's temperature (T) over the past 500 million years may be attributable to cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy.

After presenting several half-billion year histories of T, CRF and pCO2 derived from various types of proxy data, Shaviv and Veizer note that none of the pCO2 curves show any clear correlation with the T curves, suggesting to them that "CO2 is not likely to be the principal climate driver."  On the other hand, they note that the T trends display a dominant cyclic component on the order of 135 ± 9 million years, and that "this regular pattern implies that we may be looking at a reflection of celestial phenomena in the climate history of earth."

That such is likely the case is born out by their identification of a similar CRF cycle of 143 ± 10 million years, together with the fact that the large cold intervals in the T records "appear to coincide with times of high CRF," which correspondence is what would be expected from the likely chain of events: high CRF ==> more low-level clouds ==> greater planetary albedo ==> colder climate, as described by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000), Palle Bago and Butler (2000), and Marsden and Lingenfelter (2003).

What do these findings suggest about the role of atmospheric CO2 variations with respect to global temperature change?  Shaviv and Veizer begin their analysis of this question by stating that the conservative approach is to assume that the entire residual variance not explained by measurement error is due to pCO2 variations.  When this is done, they find that a doubling of the air's CO2 content can account for only about a 0.5°C increase in T.

This result differs considerably, in their words, "from the predictions of the general circulation models, which typically imply a CO2 doubling effect of ~1.5-5.5°C," but they say it is "consistent with alternative lower estimates of 0.6-1.6°C (Lindzen, 1997)."  We note also, in this regard, that Shaviv and Veizer's result is even more consistent with the nearly identical results of the eight empirical-based "natural experiments" of Idso (1998), which average about 0.4°C warming for a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the air's CO2 concentration.

There would appear to be little question but that the existence of so many totally independent empirical derivations of such a small CO2 induced global warming potential pretty much proves they must be correct, and that the much higher IPCC model-based estimates must be wrong.  But how can this be, in light of the simple and straightforward nature of the greenhouse effect theory?  Shaviv and Veizer suggest the answer "could be that the global climate possesses a stabilizing negative feedback."  We agree, and note that we have reviewed several papers that address this topic [see, for example, Feedback Factors (Biophysical) in our Subject Index)] and conclude the very same thing.

Shaviv and Veizer conclude their paper by expressing the hope that their study "may contribute to our understanding of the complexities of climate dynamics and ultimately to quantification of its response to potential anthropogenic impact."  In light of how well their results correspond to those of real-world "natural experiments," it seems clear to us it has already achieved that objective.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

References:
Idso, S.B.  1998.  Carbon-dioxide-induced global warming: A skeptic's view of potential climate change.  Climate Research 10: 69-82.

Marsden, D. and Lingenfelter, R.E.  2003.  Solar activity and cloud opacity variations: A modulated cosmic ray ionization model.  Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 60: 626-636.

Lindzen, R.S.  1997.  Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 94: 8335-8342.

Marsh, N.D. and Svensmark, H.  2000.  Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays.  Physical Review Letters 85: 5004-5007.

Palle Bago, E. and Butler, C.J.  2000.  The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming.  Astronomy & Geophysics 41: 4.18-4.22.

Shaviv, N.J. and Veizer, J.  2003.  Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?  GSA Today 13 (7): 4-10.

Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.  1997.  Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage - A missing link in solar-climate relationships.  Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 59: 1225-1232.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

"66% to 75% of the Earth's temperature variation of the past 500 million years may be attributable to CRF variations due to solar system passages thru the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy."

Absolutely awesome, ties in nicely with the observed warming in the rest of the solar system as well.

[js1138]

It will be interesting to see the responses to this. It assumes, of course, that the earth is at least 500 million years old and that various dating methods are accurate...

[narby]

After presenting several half-billion year histories of T, CRF and pCO2 derived from various types of proxy data, Shaviv and Veizer note that none of the pCO2 curves

The Earth can't be that old. These guys must all be part of that evolution religion. [/sarcasm]

[r9etb]

It will be interesting to see the responses to this. It assumes, of course, that the earth is at least 500 million years old and that various dating methods are accurate...

(smirk)

Actually, the stated frequency 143 million years (plus or minus) depends on the accuracy of their historical T, pCO₂, and other indicators. Lots of assumptions therein....

[Migraine]

I love it when sensible, plausible, empirically defensible hypotheses and data are adduced on this question. It happens 3-4 times a year, to resounding silence from the media. If there are ripples of cosmic energy for our system to pass through periodically, that would certainly help to explain the ebb and flow of temperature norms.

[Dan Evans]

And when they talk about "cold intervals" they mean "ice ages":

astro-ph/0209252 [abs, src, ps, other] :

Title:

The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth
Authors: Nir J. Shaviv
Comments: 33 pages, 11 figures. To Appear in New Astronomy

The short term variability of the Galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) reaching Earth has been previously associated with variations in the global low altitude cloud cover. This CRF variability arises from changes in the solar wind strength. However, cosmic ray variability also arises intrinsically from variable activity of and motion through the Milky Way. Thus, if indeed the CRF climate connection is real, the increased CRF witnessed while crossing the spiral arms could be responsible for a larger global cloud cover and a reduced temperature, thereby facilitating the occurrences of ice ages. This picture has been recently shown to be supported by various data (Shaviv, 2001). In particular, the variable CRF recorded in Iron meteorites appears to vary synchronously with the appearance ice ages.
Here we expand upon the original treatment with a more thorough analysis and more supporting evidence. In particular, we discuss the cosmic ray diffusion model which considers the motion of the Galactic spiral arms. We also elaborate on the structure and dynamics of the Milky Way's spiral arms. In particular, we bring forth new argumentation using HI observations which imply that the galactic spiral arm pattern speed appears to be that which fits the glaciation period and the cosmic-ray flux record extracted from Iron meteorites. In addition, we show that apparent peaks in the star formation rate history, as deduced by several authors, coincides with particularly icy epochs, while the long period of 1 to 2 Gyr before present, during which no glaciations are known to have occurred, coincides with a significant paucity in the past star formation rate. (485kb)

 

 

[neverdem]

Cool find. Take that greenhouse gasbags.

[Dan Evans]

Funding by oil companies do not invalidate research but funding by government is suspicious because governments have so much to gain. About 20,000 people with doctorates signed a statement refuting the that CO2 induced warming is significant and most state climatologists refute it.

Overheard in a NOAA elevator: "...so I asked him if he knew what this lab was doing and he said, 'I don't know what this lab is doing but what I think we're doing is going out to get money to keep people employed'"

[Artem55]

Hey man. Don't bother me with facts. I just know it's those SUV's that are causing all the problems. Besides, how am I going to sue the cosmos? Sheesh, get with the program. You're harshing my mellow.

[Rockitz]

The truth is out there if you don't let your politics confuse it.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

You look as if you might need to read this book. The first chapter is available at the link below along with lots of information on your Environut buddies.

Undue Influence

It might just wake you up.

Hmmm....alt.feminism....I can't believe you posted such blatant hearsay from a newsgroup that links back to campaignexxonmobil.org. Did you forget where you were?

[js1138]

Revise that to at least 357 million years old. All methods of determining age, including asking a person, have a range of error.

[pachanga]

So check out Svensmark's study then...he was one of the first to test and prove CRF is the driver of the temp swings. The greenhouse gas chicken littles have been proven wrong and are only taken seriously at all in the UN and with the nescient media fear mongerers. The anthropocentric global warming theory has been the biggest hoax of the last 20 yrs. Turn off CNN and look at the data and decide for yourself.

BTW 'tiny handfuls' of dissent is a joke--but keep buying the new age flat earthers political drivel if it makes you feel better.

[Barry Goldwater]

Get with the program - SUV's emit cosmic rays!

[m1911]

What's that got to do with the study done by Shaviv and Veizer?

[m1911]

Nevermind. I see that you also claim that a school that just opened has a 90% graduation rate.

[SunkenCiv]

• Timothy Wirth: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory [sic] of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing."
• Stephen Schneider: "Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."