See O'Too and Cosmic Ray in the Climate Stakes Cup

It is known that the greatest effect on global temperature is water, especially in the form of low level clouds, because of their high ability to reflect the heat of the sun back into space. Svensmark proposed that some cosmic rays, the ones that are going very fast indeed and are called muons, provide the nuclei (tiny drops) required to initiate the formation of water droplets. Hence, he suggests, if there are a lot of high speed cosmic rays reaching the earth there will be more cloud and so a lower temperature.

The number of high speed cosmic rays reaching the earth depends on a number of factors. One, which changes very slowly over millions of years, is whether the solar system is in a part of the galaxy where there are a lot of cosmic ray sources. Those sources are old, clapped out stars that have died spectacularly as supernova.

That can explain very slow, huge climatic change such as major ice ages, long periods where there was no ice at all, even at the poles, or a “snowball” Earth; but it cannot explain the quicker changes over a few thousand or a few hundred years.

The sun has a major magnetic field and the Earth is inside that magnetic field. Because cosmic rays are electrically charged they get pushed around by the Sun’s magnetic field and many are deflected away so reducing the number of cosmic rays reaching the Earth.

But the Sun’s magnetic field varies a lot. It follows that when the Sun is magnetically weak more fast cosmic rays reach the Earth and we get more clouds and hence a cold period. That certainly seems to have been the case in the bad period known as the Little Ice Age. The Sun was very quiet throughout that time. The Sun got more active in the mid 1800’s and slowly the Earth crawled out of the Little Ice Age. (And a good thing too in my opinion.)

With very little financial backing Svensmark set up an experiment to see if some cosmic rays could produce nuclei that could instigate cloud formation. The results suggested that it was possible; however, much more “heavy duty” experimentation was and is needed to examine the issue properly. After many years of delay and antagonistic obstruction, a major experimental arrangement is due to start operating very soon at CERN, almost the only laboratory with the capability of producing the high speed particles needed for the work. Preliminary results may be available in 2010. As a minimum, drastic See O’Tooist actions should be delayed until the results of that work are available.

Of course, if it transpires that climatic change is a consequence of events far outside the Earth, then it will be certain that our species cannot possibly influence or prevent that event. Any resources expended to try to “stop” change will be a total waste. So, unlike for See O’Too, puny humans - even the most arrogant - can work out that Cosmic Ray or any other natural factor cannot be nobbled by anybody. Even if our species all committed suicide it would have no effect.

So the position in the Climate Stakes is that the favourite, See O’Too, has no record of success at all in causing climate variation and is hence a very poor nag to put money on. Since it is almost certainly not going to be even a place getter, probably will not get to the starting gate and may even run the wrong way round the track, it is utterly nonsensical to waste time and money to nobble the poor beast.

Public pundits continue mindlessly to chant that the discussion about the Climate Stakes is all over. They say that the “science is settled, definite”. That is untrue. An example of disagreement between scientists on the issue is that when Big Computer was impregnated with data by Eyepee See it was instructed to assume that carbon dioxide remains in the air for 50-100 years before it is absorbed into the ocean. A whole string of scientists, notably Segalstadt at Oslo University, using a number of different methods all aver that the gas only stays in the air for about seven years. However a very recent IPCC scientist claims that it stays almost forever. Maybe Segalstad and the others are all wrong, maybe the IPCC is wrong; but clearly the science is not settled at all and to say that it is, is a perversion of the truth.

If, however, the cause(s) of climatic change are external to mankind and even external to the Earth itself then either Cosmic Ray or some other presently unknown entrant is going to win. In which case our response should not be, cannot be, to try to “stop” change; we should organise ourselves and our treatment of the environment so that we, and it, are more sustainable and able to withstand the changes that will inevitably come sometime or another. We should try to “ruggedise” ourselves and the world so that it can better withstand the shocks.

As Segalstad puts it: “The anthropogenic contribution and its influence are so small that our resources would be much better spent on other real challenges that are facing mankind.” Those challenges are environmental, economic, geo-political and social.

For a tiny fraction of what is being expended, and is proposed to be expended, backing See O’Too we could make really major improvements that would be certain to be of help some time in the future.