• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Svensmark Paper: Strong Solar Climate Influence

AGW advocates, unable to answer the evidence, default to ad hominem.

Unable to answer the evidence? No. That's you.
You seem to be forgetting the 2 papers I linked to - that you just rejected out of hand without reading. You also must have missed the argument from Dr Leif Svalgaard who showed how Svensmark and Shaviv's latest paper used a cherry-picked time frame and curve fitting.

The GCR hypothesis as any sort of significant factor in climate change has been shown to be a fizzer. Your belief is based purely on faith and ideology, not science and evidence.
 
Unable to answer the evidence? No. That's you.
You seem to be forgetting the 2 papers I linked to - that you just rejected out of hand without reading. You also must have missed the argument from Dr Leif Svalgaard who showed how Svensmark and Shaviv's latest paper used a cherry-picked time frame and curve fitting.

The GCR hypothesis as any sort of significant factor in climate change has been shown to be a fizzer. Your belief is based purely on faith and ideology, not science and evidence.

I didn't reject anything. Your papers just wren't germane.
 
Go to Jack's favorite junkscience conspiracy blog and read the comments by lsvalgaard aka Dr Leif Svalgaard (Solar Physicist) on Svensmark & Shaviv's 2016 paper :D

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08...ty-has-a-direct-impact-on-earths-cloud-cover/

The regular wattswussies don't like what he says.

I particularly liked these exchanges:

JohnKnight August 25, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Huh? Wouldn’t things “concerning GCR and clouds” be happening all the time? . . And wouldn’t small changes in total cover/mix of clouds, be essentially impossible to detect/measure at this point in time?

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:10 pm
If they are, then we cannot honestly claim that those impossible to measure changes show that GCRs are the main driver of observed climate variation, can we?

JohnKnight August 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Of course not, Isvalgaard, but neither can we rightly speak of GCRs not being a significant component in climate variation . . can we?

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Yes we can, because there is no real evidence for that. The past several solar cycles, the sun has become quieter and cosmic rays have increased, which should have cooled the climate. Instead it has warmed. So, no evidence of a significant GCR influence.


and this one:

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:43 pm
the paper makes no such claim
So, let everybody here proclaim that this latest paper does not show a GCR/Climate link, since not even the authors claim that.

Salvatore Del Prete August 25, 2016 at 3:46 pm
The paper clearly show solar /climate links.

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 4:10 pm
Not according to Svensmark
 
Go to Jack's favorite junkscience conspiracy blog and read the comments by lsvalgaard aka Dr Leif Svalgaard (Solar Physicist) on Svensmark & Shaviv's 2016 paper :D

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08...ty-has-a-direct-impact-on-earths-cloud-cover/

The regular wattswussies don't like what he says.

I particularly liked these exchanges:

JohnKnight August 25, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Huh? Wouldn’t things “concerning GCR and clouds” be happening all the time? . . And wouldn’t small changes in total cover/mix of clouds, be essentially impossible to detect/measure at this point in time?

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:10 pm
If they are, then we cannot honestly claim that those impossible to measure changes show that GCRs are the main driver of observed climate variation, can we?

JohnKnight August 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Of course not, Isvalgaard, but neither can we rightly speak of GCRs not being a significant component in climate variation . . can we?

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Yes we can, because there is no real evidence for that. The past several solar cycles, the sun has become quieter and cosmic rays have increased, which should have cooled the climate. Instead it has warmed. So, no evidence of a significant GCR influence.


and this one:

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 3:43 pm
the paper makes no such claim
So, let everybody here proclaim that this latest paper does not show a GCR/Climate link, since not even the authors claim that.

Salvatore Del Prete August 25, 2016 at 3:46 pm
The paper clearly show solar /climate links.

lsvalgaard August 25, 2016 at 4:10 pm
Not according to Svensmark

Yes. A vibrant intellectual forum.
 
Yes. A vibrant intellectual forum.

LOL! Nope. Quite the opposite. It's a crank magnet blog which attracts scientifically illiterate angry conspiracy nutters who reject climate science. The type that probably watch Alex Jones Infowars and swallow all his rants as "Truth!"

A few sane rational people (Lief Svalgaard and Nick Stokes for example) occasionally wade in there amongst the muck to correct all the junk-science crap, but usually get insults thrown at them by all the regular rabid angry conspiracy cranks. Watts then usually bans any sane posters for awhile to keep his click-bait crank nutters happy in their conspiracy-filled, junkscience-lovin', science-free safe-space. The regulars really object to science and facts being posted there. I saw a thread where Nick Stokes, one of the most polite well informed commenters you'd ever meet, get told by Watts to STFU for no reason other than he was posting evidence that showed how one of Watts blog 'articles' was wrong, and Watt's band of rabid nutters (who couldn't answer the science), were attacking Stokes with ad homs. Watts then banned Nick for months.
 
Last edited:
LOL! Nope. A few sane rational people (Lief Svalgaard and Nick Stokes for example) occasionally wade in there amongst the muck to correct all the junk-science crap, but usually get lame insults thrown at them by the regular rabid angry conspiracy cranks. Watts then usually bans any sane posters for awhile to keep his click-bait crank nutters happy. The regulars really object to science and facts being posted there.

You are a poster child for alternative facts.
 
LOL! Nope. A few sane rational people (Lief Svalgaard and Nick Stokes for example) occasionally wade in there amongst the muck to correct all the junk-science crap, but usually get lame insults thrown at them by all the regular rabid angry conspiracy cranks. Watts then usually bans any sane posters for awhile to keep his click-bait crank nutters happy. The regulars really object to science and facts being posted there. I personally saw Nick Stokes, one of the most polite commenters you'd ever meet, get told by Watts to STFU. Watts then banned him for months.

Best of luck to ya, but those with self worth wrapped up in conspiracy blogs (it makes them special) are unlikely to ever see.
 
Best of luck to ya, but those with self worth wrapped up in conspiracy blogs (it makes them special) are unlikely to ever see.

I don't post there. The crank addicts are too far gone in their crackpot anti-science conspiracies.
 
I don't post there. The crank addicts are too far gone in their crackpot anti-science conspiracies.

You are posting there. WUWT is a crackpot conspiracy blog. And just like Truthers, people feel like they're special for believing it. They're not gonna give up on being a special Snowflake just because others prove the blog is pathetic.
 
I don't post there. The crank addicts are too far gone in their crackpot anti-science conspiracies.

You are posting there. WUWT is a crackpot conspiracy blog. And just like Truthers, people feel like they're special for believing it. They're not gonna give up on being a special Snowflake just because others prove the blog is pathetic.

. . . . One of the major achievements by the multidisciplinary team is that a robust relationship between solar wind speed and North Atlantic Oscillation was found not only on a day-to-day time scale but also from the perspective of year-to-year variation, suggesting a much faster mechanism of solar influence on atmospheric system compared to the ozone destruction. Moreover, the team improved the collision and parameterization scheme and qualitatively evaluated the effects of solar energetic particle flux on cloud charge. Hence the team proposed that the solar wind and electric-microphysical effect was the key mechanism of solar activity on climate.
With the help of observations and model simulations, the team also found that the solar signal is more significant and detectable on an interdecadal time scale in some more sensitive regions, especially the tropical Pacific (eg. lagged dipolar convection pattern in tropical western Pacific; lagged El Nino Modoki-like pattern on tropical ocean surface) and monsoon regions (eg. rainband during the Mei-Yu season; north boundary of East Asian summer monsoon). Then a physical model is developed by the team to depict the interdecadal response of the air-sea system to solar activity.
The results above have been published in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Meteorological Research, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, Journal of Climate, and Advances in Space Research.
The follow-up research by the team is currently in progress and focuses on two main aspects: one is the effects of solar radiative forcing and solar energetic particles on climate in middle-high latitudes through modulating polar stratospheric-troposphere coupling, and the other is the response of a tropical Pacific air-sea system to interdecadal variation in solar activity and how this response propagates into middle latitudes through East Asian monsoon activity.
A program report is recently published in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters.

Oceans / Solar
Robust relationship between solar wind speed and North Atlantic Oscillation discovered

Interdisciplinary studies reveal relationship between solar activity and climate change INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES The solar flux is considered the fundamental energy source of earth’s climate system on long time scales. In recent decades, some studies have noted that the tiny variations in solar activity could be amplified by the nonlinear…
 

Wall of text regurgitated. Big surprise. You realize that spamming copy/paste walls merely demonstrates your own lack of knowledge on the subject, right?
 
Wall of text regurgitated. Big surprise. You realize that spamming copy/paste walls merely demonstrates your own lack of knowledge on the subject, right?
You do not understand that the supposed reason that AGW is tied to CO2, is that no other alternative
could explain the observations. If a viable alternate theory fits the observations better,
it must be ether validated or invalidated through science.
 
Wall of text regurgitated. Big surprise. You realize that spamming copy/paste walls merely demonstrates your own lack of knowledge on the subject, right?

I see you are dodging the substance of the discussion again.
 
I see you are dodging the substance of the discussion again.

You have no substance to present. You just spam copy/pastes stuff you're ignorant about. If you had any real knowledge on the subject, you wouldn't need to spam walls of text.

Enjoy spamming CT blogs.
 
You have no substance to present. You just spam copy/pastes stuff you're ignorant about. If you had any real knowledge on the subject, you wouldn't need to spam walls of text.

Enjoy spamming CT blogs.

What I know or don't know is irrelevant. You are denying the science.

The results above have been published in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Meteorological Research, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, Journal of Climate, and Advances in Space Research.
The follow-up research by the team is currently in progress and focuses on two main aspects: one is the effects of solar radiative forcing and solar energetic particles on climate in middle-high latitudes through modulating polar stratospheric-troposphere coupling, and the other is the response of a tropical Pacific air-sea system to interdecadal variation in solar activity and how this response propagates into middle latitudes through East Asian monsoon activity.
A program report is recently published in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters.
 
More evidence.

Solar
[h=1]Sun-Cloud-Ocean Update[/h]Guest essay by Mike Jonas “so much to say…so little time.” – Roy Spencer I have at last found the time for the next step in my Sun-Cloud-Ocean calculations. But first, I would like to thank everyone who commented on my previous article. Some are addressed directly below, and all comments (well, most) were useful.…
 
This is the way the climate scare ends; not with a bang, but a whimper

Guest essay by Ian Aitken What does the future hold for the climate change debate? Will there ever come a day when we see the headlines across the globe, ‘It’s Official – There Is No Climate Change Crisis’? Hardly – for unless we find some way to leap ahead in the currently highly immature science…
Continue reading →

". . . There is also the strange culture in science explained by the scientific historian Thomas Kuhn as, ‘Once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place’. Note that he is not suggesting that this is right; instead he is saying that history shows it to be case. A credible alternative theory today is the ‘cosmic ray flux theory’; but for every dollar in research funding that goes into that theory and for every mention in the media of that theory there must be ten thousand that go into the IPCC theory. It just cannot compete. And anyway it is too late – the IPCC theory grabbed the high ground decades ago and has never surrendered it. Furthermore skeptical scientists are not suggesting that there is any single, simple theory to supplant the IPCC’s anthropogenic climate change theory, the ‘Climate Change Orthodoxy’. Instead they offer a theory that climate change probably derives predominantly from natural ocean-atmosphere oscillations and/or by natural solar variations (irradiation and cosmic ray flux) and/or by natural cloud cover variations and/or the Milankovitch Effect, i.e. it is probably predominantly just natural. On the one hand you have something that is superficially simple, certain and easy for the public and journalists and politicians to understand (‘our carbon dioxide emissions are definitely the cause of dangerous climate change and reducing them will definitely solve the problem’) and on the other hand something that is complex, nuanced, uncertain and requires a considerable knowledge of science to understand (‘various complex and interlinked phenomena in nature, none of which is well understood, are probably the predominant cause of climate change that in some ways will probably be beneficial but in others may not’). It is a very easy to understand, very alarming problem with a very ‘simple’ solution (‘decarbonize globally’) vs. a very hard to understand, very unthreatening problem with no man-made solution (since we are at the mercy of nature). Which is more likely to get the media headlines, sell newspapers and grab the public imagination? And simply admitting that our knowledge of climate change science is too slight to know ‘what causes climate change’ is never likely to supplant the dominant paradigm of the Climate Change Orthodoxy. Perhaps the Climate Change Orthodoxy theory lives on for little better reason than the failure of a simple, certain, compelling alternative theory to supplant it – and if the skeptical scientists are right then no such theory is ever likely to be found. Add to the huge vested interests of the media the huge vested interests of the scientists, the scientific authorities and the army of people who profit hugely from subsidized renewables and the dominant paradigm appears secure for the indefinite future. . . ."

 
Back
Top Bottom