Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for October 11, 2006

Is there a Cosmic Ray – Global Warming Link?

By

I understand that the global warming models produced by the IPCC don’t take into account the possible influence of cosmic rays on climate?

New research out of the Danish National Space Centre provides evidence to support the theory that cosmic rays can influence the Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation.

It has apparently been hypothesized for a while, but now a causal mechanism has been identified. Apparently ions and free electrons from cosmic rays from exploding stars act as catalysts accelerating the formation of ultra-small clusters of sulpuric acid and water molecules which are the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.

According to the Danish researchers, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields the earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays and perhaps impacting on cloud cover.

Did the sun’s magnetic field really double and how does it shield the earth from cosmic rays?

Anyway, low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth and the Danes hypothesis that with less cloud the earth has been warming?

Is there evidence that there has been less cloud cover?

So with the new findings on the Sun, the ozone hole, particulate pollution and now cosmic rays, will the IPCC models need to be overhauled?

Also what about the impact of the volcano erupting in New Guinea?

It Matters That Journalists Keep Getting It Wrong

By

There has been some suggestion that in my recent blog post on a dead possum I was too hard on the ABC. Gavin and others have suggested there are bigger issues and that it doesn’t matter that sometimes some journalists get it wrong.

I disagree.

It’s my experience that it is common practice for many environmental reporters to just repeat the content of media releases and briefings from activists, particularly when the perceived villain is a miner, logger or irrigator. The story is set up for them … and they run with it.

Indeed I see significant problems with how the mainstream media reports on environmental issues and I believe there is a need for much more accountability.

I’m not sure we can properly address the many pressing environmental issues out there if journalists keep responding to activist campaigning rather than making their own minds up about what does and doesn’t need to be reported.

Then there is the human dimension of the misreporting.

There is a guy, Richard Ness, who sometimes reads this blog, and who is currently on trial in Indonesia probably because some local environmental activists thought they could create the perception of an environmental disaster. They probably assumed, given the way the media tends to work when it comes to environmental issue, that their fabrication would quickly become a news story. All they had to do was grab a few props (in this case babies with skin problems) and make a few accusations.

Indeed while the evidence doesn’t stack up, BBC Online continues to report the story including more comment from the activists who should by now be dismissed as scoundrels. Meanwhile, Richard Ness faces the prospect of 10 years in jail for something that never happened.