-2
$\begingroup$

The Earth's magentic field has been weaking recently, and the sun's magnetic field has been weaking recently, and it is a known fact that when either of these magnetic fields weaken (let alone both of them at the same time) that more cosmic rays reach the Earth - and indeed, throughout the past several decades there has been a continuously-increasing quantity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth - and it is also a known fact that cosmic rays produce C02, and that C02 causes global warming. So how do we know whether or not a huge portion of global warming is being caused by the C02-producing cosmic rays rather than human activitis? Obviously human activities do produce some amount of C02, but has an effort been made to determine how much of a contributor this is, compared to the C02 from cosmic rays?

I tried Googling for stuff like "do cosmic rays cause global warming" but the only results I am finding are things which discuss some theory about cosmic rays seeding clouds (Henrik Svensmark's theory), which is not what I am referring to. I could not find a single article that discusses - or tries to debunk - the possibility of global warming being caused by the C02-producing cosmic rays. There might be one somewhere in the search results, but I only have so much time that I am willing to spend digging through Google. Does anyone have an argument against this theory?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ There are two many "interesting" statements in this question to even list. One example; "it is also a known fact that cosmic rays produce C02" where does this come from? Can you add links to the sources of these statements? Thanks! (I suppose cosmic ray proton and muon spallation of nitrogen and oxygen could produce extremely tiny quantities of carbon, but nowhere near the tons of carbon we put into the atmosphere every day) $\endgroup$ – uhoh Jul 13 at 12:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I could not find a single article that discusses - or tries to debunk - the possibility of global warming being caused by the C02-producing cosmic rays, why do you think that may be? $\endgroup$ – gerrit Jul 13 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ uhoh: here is a link that explains how cosmic rays produce C02: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating One of the first sentences on this page says "It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14 C) is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14 C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide" $\endgroup$ – The Jaq Jul 13 at 13:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ a fraction of the CO2 is in the form of C14O2 but as far as i know this fraction is not increasing in the atmosphere. $\endgroup$ – trond hansen Jul 13 at 13:52
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Natural abundance 1 part per trillion (See the box on the RHS of the Wikipedia page.) $\endgroup$ – Keith McClary Jul 13 at 21:58
1
$\begingroup$

I don't know of any mechanism by which cosmic rays can produce substantial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Cosmic rays are fast protons and atomic nuclei from the sun and other stars bombarding the upper atmosphere, and have all kinds of subtle effects. They produce small quantities of beryllium 10, for example, but not substantial quantities of CO2. Volcanoes on the other hand do produce huge quantities of CO2. Global warming started long before the human population added large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, so there are obviously other causes in addition to mankind's activities, but these other causes don't include cosmic rays. There were plenty of cosmic rays striking the Earth during and before the various ice ages. The abundance of CO2 must be a factor, but up to a point the climate is self regulating. When CO2 abundances increase, plants grow more vigorously and extract it from the atmosphere, but this process can be overwhelmed if abundances increase too rapidly. There have been suggestions that the energy output of the sun is not completely stable and there are occasional fluctuations, but the jury is still out on that one.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.