• 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

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jacob Svensmark is the son of Henrik Svensmark. Like his father he is an astrophysicist. They have collaborated (along with Nir Shaviv) on a new paper showing solar influence on climate. Another important Svensmark paper has been expected, and now it has arrived. I suspect this one will have significant impact on the climate debate.


Svensmark publishes: Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover

From Denmark Technical University Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover Solar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere, a new study lead by DTU Space suggests. Large eruptions on the surface of the Sun can temporarily shield Earth from so-called cosmic rays which now appear to affect cloud formation. A…

Continue reading →

From Denmark Technical University

Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover
Solar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere, a new study lead by DTU Space suggests. Large eruptions on the surface of the Sun can temporarily shield Earth from so-called cosmic rays which now appear to affect cloud formation. A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth’s cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.

The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.
Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
”Earth is under constant bombardment by particles from space called galactic cosmic rays. Violent eruptions at the Sun’s surface can blow these cosmic rays away from Earth for about a week. Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth’s cloud cover. Since clouds are an important factor in controlling the temperature on Earth our results may have implications for climate change“, explains lead author on the study Jacob Svensmark of DTU. . . .

Source: Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover - DTU Space
The full reference to the new paper is: J. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, and H. Svensmark, “The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics, 2016, DOI: 10.1002/2016JA022689.
Click here or here to access the abstract and full scientific paper.


 
All they are doing is curve fitting. See the comments by Leif Svalgaard

"August 25, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing
1) the integral of positive numbers diverges towards infinity.
2) the integral of the difference between a time series and its mean is always zero
3) the integral of the difference between a time series and some value, depends on what that value is, which then makes it a free parameter. If you vary that parameter to fit some data, you are just doing curve fitting with no physics."

"August 25, 2016 at 2:48 pm
As far as I can tell from the Figure, the integral is of the difference between the yearly values and the mean. This means that the integral value at the right-hand end of the Figure is zero [also at the left-hand side]. But the whole exercise is more nonsensical than I thought. Why should the climate system know about when we invented the telescope about 1610 [which is the starting point of the integration]? Why not start in 1700 [when the sunspot series becomes better known], or 1800 [when the data is reliable]?

This is what you get by carrying out those integrals:

Sunspot-Group-Integrals.jpg

Note how all three integrals begin and end with zeroes.
Of course, all of them misses the warming up to 1945.
The whole thing is nonsense of purest carat."
 
Its an obvious truth that high energy particles interact with the aerosols in the air to change precipitation. The problem is modeling them with any accuracy. Seems these guys plan to attempt that.
 
There's a new paper just published this month by Kancírová et al in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics which shows the Cosmic Rays hypothesis is a bit of a fizzer....

Relevance of long term time – Series of atmospheric parameters at a mountain observatory to models for climate change

"There is a significant correlation only between cosmic ray (CR) intensity (and sunspot number (SSN)) and the cloud cover of the types cirrus and stratus. This effect is mainly confined to the CR intensity minimum during the epoch around 1990, when the SSN was at its maximum. This fact, together with the present study of the correlation of LSCC with our measured CR intensity, shows that there is no firm evidence for a significant contribution of CR induced ionization to the local (or, indeed, Global) cloud cover.

Pressure effects are the preferred cause of the cloud cover changes. A consequence is that there is no evidence favouring a contribution of CR to the Global Warming problem. Our analysis shows that the LS data are consistent with the Gas Laws for a stable mass of atmosphere."
 
Quaestio said:
There's a new paper just published this month by Kancírová et al in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics which shows the Cosmic Rays hypothesis is a bit of a fizzer....

Relevance of long term time – Series of atmospheric parameters at a mountain observatory to models for climate change

"There is a significant correlation only between cosmic ray (CR) intensity (and sunspot number (SSN)) and the cloud cover of the types cirrus and stratus. This effect is mainly confined to the CR intensity minimum during the epoch around 1990, when the SSN was at its maximum. This fact, together with the present study of the correlation of LSCC with our measured CR intensity, shows that there is no firm evidence for a significant contribution of CR induced ionization to the local (or, indeed, Global) cloud cover.

Pressure effects are the preferred cause of the cloud cover changes. A consequence is that there is no evidence favouring a contribution of CR to the Global Warming problem. Our analysis shows that the LS data are consistent with the Gas Laws for a stable mass of atmosphere."
Click to expand...

LOL...

No firm evidence.

LOL...

The entire AGW scare has no firm evidence of any type!

LOL...

No form evidence favoring cosmic over AGW...

LOL...

That doesn't discount it as a variable!
 
Quaestio said:
All they are doing is curve fitting. See the comments by Leif Svalgaard

"August 25, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing
1) the integral of positive numbers diverges towards infinity.
2) the integral of the difference between a time series and its mean is always zero
3) the integral of the difference between a time series and some value, depends on what that value is, which then makes it a free parameter. If you vary that parameter to fit some data, you are just doing curve fitting with no physics."

"August 25, 2016 at 2:48 pm
As far as I can tell from the Figure, the integral is of the difference between the yearly values and the mean. This means that the integral value at the right-hand end of the Figure is zero [also at the left-hand side]. But the whole exercise is more nonsensical than I thought. Why should the climate system know about when we invented the telescope about 1610 [which is the starting point of the integration]? Why not start in 1700 [when the sunspot series becomes better known], or 1800 [when the data is reliable]?

This is what you get by carrying out those integrals:

View attachment 67206394

Note how all three integrals begin and end with zeroes.
Of course, all of them misses the warming up to 1945.
The whole thing is nonsense of purest carat."
Click to expand...

It's the data doing the "curve fitting."
 
Jack Hays said:
Jacob Svensmark is the son of Henrik Svensmark. Like his father he is an astrophysicist. They have collaborated (along with Nir Shaviv) on a new paper showing solar influence on climate. Another important Svensmark paper has been expected, and now it has arrived. I suspect this one will have significant impact on the climate debate.


Svensmark publishes: Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover

From Denmark Technical University Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover Solar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere, a new study lead by DTU Space suggests. Large eruptions on the surface of the Sun can temporarily shield Earth from so-called cosmic rays which now appear to affect cloud formation. A…

Continue reading →

From Denmark Technical University

Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover
Solar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere, a new study lead by DTU Space suggests. Large eruptions on the surface of the Sun can temporarily shield Earth from so-called cosmic rays which now appear to affect cloud formation. A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth’s cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.

The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.
Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
”Earth is under constant bombardment by particles from space called galactic cosmic rays. Violent eruptions at the Sun’s surface can blow these cosmic rays away from Earth for about a week. Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth’s cloud cover. Since clouds are an important factor in controlling the temperature on Earth our results may have implications for climate change“, explains lead author on the study Jacob Svensmark of DTU. . . .

Source: Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover - DTU Space
The full reference to the new paper is: J. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, and H. Svensmark, “The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics, 2016, DOI: 10.1002/2016JA022689.
Click here or here to access the abstract and full scientific paper.
Click to expand...

That REAL Science Guy, Bill Nye says Climate Change is Man's fault, and he's THE SCIENCE guy. Nto some Astrophysicist on the payroll of BIG OIL. What does he know but what the Koch brothers tell him to say?? Huh!!
 
Renae said:
That REAL Science Guy, Bill Nye says Climate Change is Man's fault, and he's THE SCIENCE guy. Nto some Astrophysicist on the payroll of BIG OIL. What does he know but what the Koch brothers tell him to say?? Huh!!
Click to expand...

This has been yet another straw man from Renae
 
Nine years on, Svensmark still sits at number 30.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during July 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org › ... › Astronomy & GeophysicsAstronomy & Geophysics


Aug 7, 2016 - Most-Read Articles during July 2016. Most-read ... The earthquake deformation cycle A&G (2016) 57 (4): 4.20-4.26 .... Henrik Svensmark.
 
Quaestio said:
There's a new paper just published this month by Kancírová et al in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics which shows the Cosmic Rays hypothesis is a bit of a fizzer....

Relevance of long term time – Series of atmospheric parameters at a mountain observatory to models for climate change

"There is a significant correlation only between cosmic ray (CR) intensity (and sunspot number (SSN)) and the cloud cover of the types cirrus and stratus. This effect is mainly confined to the CR intensity minimum during the epoch around 1990, when the SSN was at its maximum. This fact, together with the present study of the correlation of LSCC with our measured CR intensity, shows that there is no firm evidence for a significant contribution of CR induced ionization to the local (or, indeed, Global) cloud cover.

Pressure effects are the preferred cause of the cloud cover changes. A consequence is that there is no evidence favouring a contribution of CR to the Global Warming problem. Our analysis shows that the LS data are consistent with the Gas Laws for a stable mass of atmosphere."
Click to expand...

Notice, I have never pushed that notion.
 
Paleoclimatology
[h=1]Solar variability and the Earth’s climate[/h]Guest essay by Andy May According to Javier and the IPCC, total solar radiation output varies little, less than 0.1%. This is only 0.7 to 1.4 Watts/m2 compared to an IPCC anthropogenic effect estimate of 2.3 Watts/m2. They believe it has a small effect on the Earth’s climate. Others, like Abdussamatov, think solar output is…
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover -- ScienceDaily[/h]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htm


Science Daily


Date: August 25, 2016; Source: Technical University of Denmark; Summary: Solar ... change," explains lead author on the study Jacob Svensmark of DTU.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting concept, but like AGW would be difficult to isolate out the variables, and say,"this and this alone is the cause of the cloud reduction."
 
longview said:
It is an interesting concept, but like AGW would be difficult to isolate out the variables, and say,"this and this alone is the cause of the cloud reduction."
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I'm attracted to the large scale and fundamental elegance of the concept, as opposed to the increasingly elaborate defenses of the AGW paradigm.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fair enough. But I'm attracted to the large scale and fundamental elegance of the concept, as opposed to the increasingly elaborate defenses of the AGW paradigm.
Click to expand...
It is a theory with an engineering elegance to it.
 
Solar
[h=1]Solar Cycle Mystery Solved ?[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald In the time before the current period of faith-based science, much good work was done on the role of the Sun in controlling climate. One of the best monographs from that time of innocence is Hoyt and Schatten’s The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, published by Oxford University…
 
Anyone starting off with "faith-based science" is clearly not making an objective assessment.
 
Jack Hays said:
That is a reference to AGW believers.:lamo
Click to expand...

Um, yes. Exactly. That's how you know it was a partisan hack writing the article.

Oh wait. You actually believe that kind of rhetoric, don't you? :lamo
 
Deuce said:
Um, yes. Exactly. That's how you know it was a partisan hack writing the article.

Oh wait. You actually believe that kind of rhetoric, don't you? :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. Faith in AGW is religious.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, I do. Faith in AGW is religious.
Click to expand...

Oh come now, Jack. Don't go moving the goalposts. :lamo The conversation wasn't about "faith in AGW," it was about "faith-based science" that the article was accusing people of.
 
Deuce said:
Oh come now, Jack. Don't go moving the goalposts. :lamo The conversation wasn't about "faith in AGW," it was about "faith-based science" that the article was accusing people of.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference.
 
Jack Hays said:
A distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

To you, yes. I know. Hence my previous and continued laughter.

It's so much easier to just handwave decades of research, isn't it? Don't bother actually analyzing it. Call it religion and walk away. :lamo

Ironically, going on faith yourself that every last one of them is biased.
 
Deuce said:
To you, yes. I know. Hence my previous and continued laughter.

It's so much easier to just handwave decades of research, isn't it? Don't bother actually analyzing it. Call it religion and walk away. :lamo

Ironically, going on faith yourself that every last one of them is biased.
Click to expand...

As Kuhn pointed out long ago, they're committed to a paradigm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom