The researchers studied the growth of Sitka spruce forests in Scotland.
Credit: iStockphoto
SYDNEY: Cosmic rays, which constantly strike the Earth and are regulated by the solar wind, may influence how fast trees grow, according to British research.
The study, published in the journal New Phytologist looked at the factors that influence the growth of Sitka spruce trees (Picea sitchensis) felled in the Forest of Ae in Dumfriesshire, Scotland.
Trees grow faster during summer when there is more light. But other factors, such as cloud cover and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, can also influence tree growth.
Tree rings
The researchers measured the width of tree rings in 30 slices of spruce preserved by freezing. While looking for climatic factors that might influence the growth of the trees, they made the surprising discovery that the trees grew faster in a pattern that matched with cycles of galactic cosmic rays; high energy particles (mostly protons) that stream from space.
The intensity of cosmic rays hitting the Earth at any time is modulated by the strength of the solar wind, which in turn is linked to solar activity. For example, when there are few sunspots, during the solar minimum, there are more galactic cosmic rays hitting the Earth.
Since solar activity varies on a roughly 11-year cycle, there are periods when the Sun is relatively quiescent and the intensity of galactic cosmic rays is high.
Puzzling correlation
These periods between 1961 and 2005 match growth spurts recorded in the tree rings, report the researchers, led by Sigrid Dengel from the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
But so far no-one knows why the link - which is small, but significant statistically - should exist. "These cyclic phenomena have been previously been identified in tree ring records but rarely explained," Dengel told Cosmos Online.
One mechanism being considered by Dengel and her colleagues is the tendency of cosmic rays to create particles that 'seed' clouds. Research in the U.S. journal Science in 2002 suggested this effect may explain why solar variation can have a relatively big effect on climate by changing the amount of cloud cover on Earth.
A Cosmic Comedy
It would be hilarious, were it not so maddening, to watch Cosmos try to square the circle between AGW and solar physics. While the article makes plain the connection between solar minima and expanded cloud cover (hence more rain for the trees) author Heather Catchpoole tries to confuse the issue with her off-hand comment about skeptics not buying the cosmic ray- cloud formation link. This is particularly interesting since, everywhere else in Cosmos, skeptics are called "deniers" and lumped in with flat-Earthers and Creationists. Now, all of a sudden and without any supporting context, "skeptics" are the proponents of AGW!
I've said it before and I'll say it again! And this article only goes to demonstrate how right I am. Mankind is too small and puny to have any effect on the Earth that can be noticeable after vulcanism, ocean currents, solar activity, cosmic rays, and other much larger variables are accounted for.
To think otherwise is hubris.
Deniers, flat-Earthers and Creationists
Looks like the crackpots are back. They seem to be targeting Cosmos now.
Guess you got to have something to do when you're alone, discredited and have difficulty separating data from conjecture. Cosmos should have included these nutjobs in its recent "Mass Delusions" cover story.
No doubt our friend above will say that scientists who are convinced by the data on climate change - 99% of scientists - are the ones who are delusional. But one of the determinants of delusion is that you ignore the vast amount of evidence that doesn't fit your thesis, and only look for the scattering of evidence that seems to buttress it.
I'd like to say welcome back deniers, but I'd be lying.
William
Yet Another Ad Hominem Attack
As was done once before,
You ignore the points raised in my post, and then impute thoughts and motivations (without, I might add, any evidence whatsoever) to me and those who might dissent from the dogma of the Church of Gore. Of course, this is not the way in which science works and, in semantics, one shouldn't confuse one set of skeptics with another, which is exactly what Ms. Catchpoole does.
Your appeals to authority, Mr. DaSilva, are nothing short of pitiful. As is your questionable statistic, I suppose you wouldn't mind sourcing that quote of "99% of scientists", would you?
Your angry personal attacks, however, do nothing to address my argument that Mankind and his actions are dwarfed to insignificance when compared to the actions and effects of solar activity, cosmic rays, orbital mechanics, ocean currents, and volcanic activity.
Perhaps if you were to address these questions, rather than engage in puerile taunts, I might take you a bit more seriously.
Of course, as with the Red Meat Foot Print article, this post will probably be spiked and the comments feature on this article will be disabled.
Science does not advance by the silencing of dissent, Mr. DaSilva. I hope you learn better some day.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Re: Yet Another Ad Hominem Attack
Firstly, the reader who left the message above is "William", whom you seem to have confused with me.
Secondly, my name is "da Silva" (lower case "da" -space - Silva).
Cheers
Wilson da Silva
Editor-in-Chief
Homer Nods.
My apologies, Mr. DaSilva!
I have, indeed, mistaken "William" for yourself. However, William engaged in much of the same rhetoric that you once did, regarding my skepticism about AGW. Neither he, nor you, for that matter, addressed the issues, and you did purge further comment and disabled the comment feature of "The Red Meat Footprint" article.
Other than that, though, you are not William!