Una traducción está disponible aquí
The current Economist has an article:
My thoughts, from my lab techo point of view, on the Jan Veizer talk mentioned above in comment 88, are here:
If the recent data regarding phytoplankton emission of isoprene or DMS affects cloud production is valid. And the indication is that during periods of decreased ICMEs relate to increases in CR. And increases in CR relate to a de-nitrification of the Stratosphere which would offset sodium chloride aersols being lifted to the this region with the possible decrease of atmospheric ozone as a result. And the decrease in ozone would increase the UV energy reaching the phytoplankton on the Sea Surface both killing it, warming it, and increasing the surface salinity. Then may be the issue of cloud formation and the realtionship to CR may be a possibility.
Occums Razor probably will disallow these observations. To have such a detailed path to follow for cause and effect seems like a logic construction and may not be natural. (I suspect that is part of the reason for the anthropogenic relationship to GW that has been established in the absense of detailed evidence of other drivers.)
Here is the phytoplankton article I saw from the Georgia Institute of Technology Research News :
The Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group has shown that all the IPCC scenarios on CO2 emission are faulty. There are simply not enough fossile sources in the ground to maintain even the weakest development. I wonder why nobody took the time to look at the amount of oil, gas and coal to back these scenarios? The Uppsala group has contacted IPCC but as far as I know without any answer.
re:105. “The Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group was founded in January 2003. The group has governmental support from the Swedish Energy Agency and industrial support from Lundin Petroleum.”
Always proceed with extreme caution re: objectivity when citing a study supported directly by an oil company with a clear vested interest.
Coal is a fossil fuel, but it is not a “hydrocarbon” and is not part of the Uppsala discussion. Uppsala is, as they say, one of the “peak oil” studies.
Coal is the big source of near-future CO2 — from old tech dirty coal burning electrical generators, in particular the many dozens of them now committed and funded to be build — these will be used for the next half century.
re 106. The study you are referring to is a Master thesis at Uppsala University. The facts presented can not be turned away referring to Lundin Petrolium. It is easy for anybody to confirm the facts put forward.
re: 108. Yes, a Masters Thesis’ “facts” can and absolutely should be “turned away” until it is published and peer-reviewed in a legitimate scientific journal (not a petroleum company journal, web site, or “grey” literature). I can vouch for that from personal experience.
Jan — coal is not a hydrocarbon. Uppsala is a ‘peak oil and gas’ study, says so on the website.
A master’s thesis is a type of grey literature, which also undergoes a review process. There is an academic committee for the manuscript as well as an oral defense. There are of course differences in degrees among academic institutions. Usually, no one fact or piece of data is the basis for empirical verification but is aggregated and supported by other data and sources. One of the results from a general survey on grey literature (2004) recommends that grey publishers include a statement on the review process in which their publications undergo.
[…] Svensmark’s supposed correlation is with low-level cloud formation. Schmidt also listed several additional questions that still need to be answered: First, the particles observed in these experiments are orders of […]
[…] correlation between low clouds and these "cosmic rays." There is no direct evidence that Cosmic rays have any effect whatsoever on aerosol processes in the atmosphere. To see a World in a Grain of […]
[…] supposed correlation is with low-level cloud formation. Schmidt also listed several additional questions that still need to be […]
[…] Atraveller Paper by Henrik Svensmark studies the possible mechanism: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/ One counter argument about the cosmic ray theory Press release from the American Geophysical Union about the idea. […]
[…] rebuttals against the contention that global warming is correlated to cosmic rays (for example seeâ€¦ ) At the bottom I list the growing number of well referenced and detailed rebuttals of the […]
[…] “Cosmic rays” don’t have any scientific proof or trend data http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/… […]
[…] http://environment.newscientist.com/chan…http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc… […]
[…] or less) expected due to the direct solar forcing. The GCR hypothesis is a wildly ATM idea. The proposed mechanism has several problems and it is falsified by the real world data, which shows no […]
[…] been any trend in cosmic ray flux over the last half a decade. This is described in detail here: RealClimate So, at the end of the day, I judge it improbable that changes in solar activity are the driver of […]
[…] of the inner solar system. The cosmic ray idea is considered ATM. The proposed mechanism has several problems and it does not show any correlation with temperature during the recent period of global […]
Mathematical notation provided by QuickLatex
Powered by WordPress
Switch to our mobile site