• 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

As Kuhn pointed out long ago, they're committed to a paradigm.

Yeah yeah yeah.

Can you name one active, publishing scientist in a climate-related field who is an AGW proponent who you don't think is going on faith? One who is making an unbiased assessment of data and is simply wrong rather than a religious fanatic?
 
Yeah yeah yeah.

Can you name one active, publishing scientist in a climate-related field who is an AGW proponent who you don't think is going on faith? One who is making an unbiased assessment of data and is simply wrong rather than a religious fanatic?

They all believe they are unbiased, but like Ptolemy's defenders they are limited by their orthodox paradigm.
 
They all believe they are unbiased, but like Ptolemy's defenders they are limited by their orthodox paradigm.

A simple "no" would have sufficed. But my point is proven nonetheless.
 
Actually, you are making my point.

Keep telling yourself that.

Like I said. Handwaving decades of research is just easier for you :)
 
Keep telling yourself that.

Like I said. Handwaving decades of research is just easier for you :)

There's nothing at all wrong with the research. But the orthodox paradigm prevents insightful conclusions.
 
There's nothing at all wrong with the research. But the orthodox paradigm prevents insightful conclusions.

Yes, this is consistent with my conclusion about you.
 
I'm not the thread topic.

Your presentation of AGW science is absolutely part of this discussion. If you're unwilling to discuss your own contributions to the thread, I guess there's nothing else?
 
Your presentation of AGW science is absolutely part of this discussion. If you're unwilling to discuss your own contributions to the thread, I guess there's nothing else?

The OP is the topic.
 
Are you still flogging your 'cosmic rays' dead horse hypothesis?

Yet another recent paper shows it's a fizzer:


Sun-clouds-climate connection takes a beating from CERN
-Oct 2016

"Most of the effect on the formation of cloud particles is driven by sulfuric acid, ammonia, or molecules from a biological source. While ions are often included in these particles, they aren't major drivers of this process. "The relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations," the authors conclude, "indicates that, for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.""


Source article published in Science - 27th Oct 2016:

Dunne, Eimear M., et al. "Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements." Science (2016): aaf2649.
 
Last edited:
Are you still flogging your 'cosmic rays' dead horse hypothesis?

Yet another recent paper shows it's a fizzer:


Sun-clouds-climate connection takes a beating from CERN
-Oct 2016

"Most of the effect on the formation of cloud particles is driven by sulfuric acid, ammonia, or molecules from a biological source. While ions are often included in these particles, they aren't major drivers of this process. "The relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations," the authors conclude, "indicates that, for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.""


Source article published in Science - 27th Oct 2016:

Dunne, Eimear M., et al. "Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements." Science (2016): aaf2649.

A model-based paper. The citadel of paradigm protection.
 
From the Ars Technica article:

Sun-clouds-climate connection takes a beating from CERN | Ars Technica

" More careful looks at the connection between incoming radiation and cloud cover generally found no correlation at all; meanwhile, temperatures kept rising even as solar activity dropped. Plus clouds have a complex relationship to climate, reflecting sunlight or insulating the planet, depending on their location and structure. Finally it was never entirely clear that radiation could drive cloud formation in the first place.

That last point is where CERN, the people who built the Large Hadron Collider, stepped in. They're very adept at creating radiation in a controlled environment and figured they could get to the bottom of how that radiation could influence cloud formation. Preliminary results looked promising, but it later turned out that the presence of even trace chemical contaminants could completely swamp the influence of the radiation.

Now, the same team is back with a follow-up paper that delves into the big picture of cloud formation. After years of testing, the team had exposed water vapor to a variety of conditions: different temperatures, the presence of various chemicals like sulfuric acid and ammonia, and the presence or absence of radiation. In each condition, the number of particles that water condensed on were measured."
 
From the Ars Technica article:

Sun-clouds-climate connection takes a beating from CERN | Ars Technica

" More careful looks at the connection between incoming radiation and cloud cover generally found no correlation at all; meanwhile, temperatures kept rising even as solar activity dropped. Plus clouds have a complex relationship to climate, reflecting sunlight or insulating the planet, depending on their location and structure. Finally it was never entirely clear that radiation could drive cloud formation in the first place.

That last point is where CERN, the people who built the Large Hadron Collider, stepped in. They're very adept at creating radiation in a controlled environment and figured they could get to the bottom of how that radiation could influence cloud formation. Preliminary results looked promising, but it later turned out that the presence of even trace chemical contaminants could completely swamp the influence of the radiation.

Now, the same team is back with a follow-up paper that delves into the big picture of cloud formation. After years of testing, the team had exposed water vapor to a variety of conditions: different temperatures, the presence of various chemicals like sulfuric acid and ammonia, and the presence or absence of radiation. In each condition, the number of particles that water condensed on were measured."

Classic paradigm protection.

This allowed the team to build a model of what is going on in the actual atmosphere. If you feed the conditions of the atmosphere to the model—different levels of chemicals and radiation at a given temperature—it can predict the level of cloud droplet formation that occurs. The model was compared to real-world measurements, and it turned out to be fairly accurate.
The authors then started pulling different factors out of the model and seeing how well it worked. This allowed them to identify which factors had the biggest influence on cloud formation.
 
Its an obvious truth that high energy particles interact with the aerosols in the air to change precipitation.
No, the CERN team have shown it's not an 'obvious truth' and never was. It was an hypothesis.
The problem is modeling them with any accuracy. Seems these guys plan to attempt that.
No, they're not "attempting that" at all. Svensmark and Shaviv are just doing some dishonest cherry-picking and curve fitting. It's the CERN team who were doing all the testing, then have already developed and tested a model which is quite accurate - as shown in the paper I cited.
 
No, the CERN team have shown it's not an 'obvious truth' and never was. It was an hypothesis.
No, they're not "attempting that" at all. Svensmark and Shaviv are just doing some dishonest cherry-picking and curve fitting. It's the CERN team who were doing all the testing, then have already developed and tested a model which is quite accurate - as shown in the paper I cited.

How did all that "dishonest cherry-picking and curve fitting" get past Oxford University, the Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton?
 
How did all that "dishonest cherry-picking and curve fitting" get past Oxford University, the Royal Astronomical Society and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton?
Science and academia really isn't your thing is it?
 
More mine than yours, it would seem.

If that's what you need to believe to protect your self-deluded faith-based anti-science beliefs, you go right ahead. ;)
 
No, the CERN team have shown it's not an 'obvious truth' and never was. It was an hypothesis.
I'm not aware of them testing with aerosols in the air, and I am pretty certain you are wrong. What you say defies why I have learned a few decades ago.

Aerosols change precipitation sensitivity for formation, and energized aerosols different yet.
 
Last edited:
I'm not aware of then testing with aerosols in the air, and I am pretty certain you are wrong. What you say defies why I have learned a few decades ago.

Aerosols change precipitation sensitivity for formation, and energized aerosols different yet.
So you haven't read the paper I linked to but you're certain I'm wrong, even though you don't know what I was referring to, because you didn't bother to read the paper. I doubt you've ever even read a textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry. But you're convinced you're an 'expert'. ;)
 
Last edited:
So you haven't read the paper I linked to but you're certain I'm wrong, even though you don't know what I was referring to, because you didn't bother to read the paper. I doubt you've ever even read a textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry. But you're convinced you're an 'expert'. Your extreme self delusion, lack of knowledge, straw man arguments, and glaringly obvious confirmation isn't skepticism.

I haven't.

I'm not interested in the cosmic ray angle if warming. Until I see otherwise, I believe it has impact, but is minimal, or insignificant.

Aerosols do change precipitation sensitivity however. that is not disputed.
 
I haven't.

I'm not interested in the cosmic ray angle if warming. Until I see otherwise, I believe it has impact, but is minimal, or insignificant.

Aerosols do change precipitation sensitivity however. that is not disputed.
Where did I claim that aerosols don't affect precipitation? Nowhere. So you're just attacking your own strawman and didn't bother to even read any of the source papers in this thread.

Are you also admitting that you've never even read a textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom