• 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!

Why Climate Change is good for the world

Jack Hays said:
I take it you have no reply.
Click to expand...

So you can't refute my exposé of bubba's rebleated dishonest fake quotes?

I was to give you a gentle hint to stop humping my leg with your random off-topic posts. Pesky persistent little yapper aren't you?
 
bubbabgone said:
The theory of solar magnetic strength on cosmic rays that influence climate change matches measured warming and cooling periods far better than CO2.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't; not in terms of multi-decadal trends, at least, since there has been no strong multi-decadal CRF trend since the 1950s (and to the extent that there's been any trend, it has been one which would have a cooling influence by the proposed cloud-formation mechanism).

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen almost explicitly state as much in their 2007 reply to Lockwood and Frohlich, not only by showing the lack of a strong CRF trend itself, but in the caption noting that the correlation becomes strongest once the global warming trend is removed:

101.jpg

FIG. 2: The solar cycle and the negative correlation of global mean tropospheric temperatures with galactic cosmic rays are apparent in this ESA-ISAC analysis (ref. [2]). The upper panel shows observations of temperatures (blue) and cosmic rays (red). The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nin ̃o, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14±0.4 K/Decade).​

Last I'd heard (which admittedly must be nigh on a couple of years ago now) the CERN experiments attempting to confirm the CRF -> cloud nuclei mechanism in the first place had still not achieved that result - the first of several stages in the process had been replicated, if memory serves. [Edit: It seems Quaestio and Jack have some more recent information I'll have to look at sometime :lol: ] In time this apparent correlation might be upheld with a demonstrable causal mechanism. It may even end up being the case that galactic cosmic radiation variation has been a major climate driver in the geological past as Svensmark has proposed (though it should also be mentioned that even he acknowledges that CO2 tends to correlate about as well with geological temperatures as GCR does).

In the last half-century however, at most it might be responsible for year-to-year modulations of temperature with perhaps a slight multi-decadal cooling influence.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
So you can't refute my exposé of bubba's rebleated dishonest fake quotes?

I was to give you a gentle hint to stop humping my leg with your random off-topic posts. Pesky persistent little yapper aren't you?
Click to expand...

Bubba can take care of himself. My business was to refute your #400. That has been done.
 
Mithrae said:
No it doesn't; not in terms of multi-decadal trends, at least, since there has been no strong multi-decadal CRF trend since the 1950s (and to the extent that there's been any trend, it has been one which would have a cooling influence by the proposed cloud-formation mechanism).

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen almost explicitly state as much in their 2007 reply to Lockwood and Frohlich, not only by showing the lack of a strong CRF trend itself, but in the caption noting that the correlation becomes strongest once the global warming trend is removed:
101.jpg

FIG. 2: The solar cycle and the negative correlation of global mean tropospheric temperatures with galactic cosmic rays are apparent in this ESA-ISAC analysis (ref. [2]). The upper panel shows observations of temperatures (blue) and cosmic rays (red). The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nin ̃o, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14±0.4 K/Decade).​

Last I'd heard (which admittedly must be nigh on a couple of years ago now) the CERN experiments attempting to confirm the CRF -> cloud nuclei mechanism in the first place had still not achieved that result - the first of several stages in the process had been replicated, if memory serves. [Edit: It seems Quaestio and Jack have some more recent information I'll have to look at sometime :lol: ] In time this apparent correlation might be upheld with a demonstrable causal mechanism. It may even end up being the case that galactic cosmic radiation variation has been a major climate driver in the geological past as Svensmark has proposed (though it should also be mentioned that even he acknowledges that CO2 tends to correlate about as well with geological temperatures as GCR does).

In the last half-century however, at most it might be responsible for year-to-year modulations of temperature with perhaps a slight multi-decadal cooling influence.
Click to expand...

A product of Shaviv's year at IAS:

". . . The results have two particularly interesting implications. First, they bring yet another link between the galactic environment and the terrestrial climate. Although there is no direct evidence that cosmic rays are the actual link on the 32-million-year time scale, as far as we know, they are the only link that can explain these observations. This in turn strengthens the idea that cosmic ray variations through solar activity affect the climate. In this picture, solar activity increase is responsible for about half of the twentieth-century global warming through a reduction of the cosmic ray flux, leaving less to be explained by anthropogenic activity. Also, in this picture, climate sensitivity is on the low side (perhaps 1 to 1.5°C increase per CO2 doubling, compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C range advocated by the IPCC), implying that the future is not as dire as often prophesied. . . . "

How Might Climate be Influenced by Cosmic Rays? | Institute for ...

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/shaviv-milky-way


Nir Shaviv. Our galactic journey imprinted in the climate—when Earth's temperature (red dots warm, blue dots cold) is plotted as a function of time (vertical axis) ...
 
bubbabgone said:
The theory of solar magnetic strength on cosmic rays that influence climate change matches measured warming and cooling periods far better than CO2.
Click to expand...

LOL....

Says... you? The guy who barely gets general science at all?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Closed for review.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The next person who insults another poster instead of addressing the topic will be leaving the thread with points. This is a zero tolerance warning, so stick to discussing the OP and the OP only. Posts made before this in thread warning may still be subject to moderation.
 
Mithrae said:
All of it by the time of peak solar activity in the 1950s, even if the (as yet unproven) cosmic ray theory turns out to be correct.


It's worth noting that Shaviv 2005's 0.47K solar-plus-CRF influence (~0.11 solar and ~0.36 CRF) estimate is for the time period 1850-1900 to 1950-1990. He also estimates 0.14K of anthropogenic influence. However global average temperatures increased by only about 0.3K in that period (GISS, HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 on a 40-year mean).

This is more than a little puzzling, and it's difficult to see how the large proposed CRF contribution can be reconciled with the observational data. Fortunately, Shaviv manages to use the IPCC TAR figure of 0.57K to fit his calculations in... even though that figure was for the period 1901 to 2000:
Click to expand...

Not puzzling at all. Antropogenic land use and greenhouse gasses can be positive, while the aerosols produced during heavy industrialization had a cooling effect.

Just depends on what cherries are picked.
 
Mithrae said:
No it doesn't; not in terms of multi-decadal trends, at least, since there has been no strong multi-decadal CRF trend since the 1950s (and to the extent that there's been any trend, it has been one which would have a cooling influence by the proposed cloud-formation mechanism).

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen almost explicitly state as much in their 2007 reply to Lockwood and Frohlich, not only by showing the lack of a strong CRF trend itself, but in the caption noting that the correlation becomes strongest once the global warming trend is removed:

101.jpg

FIG. 2: The solar cycle and the negative correlation of global mean tropospheric temperatures with galactic cosmic rays are apparent in this ESA-ISAC analysis (ref. [2]). The upper panel shows observations of temperatures (blue) and cosmic rays (red). The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nin ̃o, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14±0.4 K/Decade).​

Last I'd heard (which admittedly must be nigh on a couple of years ago now) the CERN experiments attempting to confirm the CRF -> cloud nuclei mechanism in the first place had still not achieved that result - the first of several stages in the process had been replicated, if memory serves. [Edit: It seems Quaestio and Jack have some more recent information I'll have to look at sometime :lol: ] In time this apparent correlation might be upheld with a demonstrable causal mechanism. It may even end up being the case that galactic cosmic radiation variation has been a major climate driver in the geological past as Svensmark has proposed (though it should also be mentioned that even he acknowledges that CO2 tends to correlate about as well with geological temperatures as GCR does).

In the last half-century however, at most it might be responsible for year-to-year modulations of temperature with perhaps a slight multi-decadal cooling influence.
Click to expand...

Actually, Svensmark said his intention was not to supplant CO2 models with Cosmic Ray models. Nevertheless we know that model accuracy is poor when they assume CO2 is the driver.
That means there is something(s) else that affect climate ... something(s) that dominate the effect of CO2 alone.

To start with, for years Governments committed to the IPCC position were successful in stopping the CERN experiments. Is that the Scientific Method? Among alarmists, yes.
Anyway, eventually CERN allowed some experimentation to begin and it indicated that cosmic rays did have the effect of increasing aerosol particles by a factor of 10.

You mention other factors such as El Nin ̃o, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and many more that are known to affect climate. Cloud formation triggered by cosmic rays is one of the more significant ones but they all contribute to changes in climate.

Cosmic ray intensity seems to follow in short cycles of a dozen or so years (and longer cycles as well) and sufficient data about clouds for very long periods isn't available. But there should be no doubt that clouds are a huge factor, probably more than CO2 since history shows warming and cooling periods independent of CO2.

The point being that factors other than CO2 exist and need to participate in the examination of climate. The IPCC dismisses or minimizes everything but CO2 as significant drivers.
 
Quaestio said:
Professor Richard Alley on cosmic rays (AGU conference):

Click to expand...


I don't know how much of an effect cosmic rays would have in our modern day atmosphere, but in centuries past, there were no man made aerosols in the atmosphere for the changing effects they cause. It is a scientific certainty that cosmic rays will have an effect on the increased particulates we now have, whereas there could be zero effects with clean skies.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't know how much of an effect cosmic rays would have in our modern day atmosphere, but in centuries past, there were no man made aerosols in the atmosphere for the changing effects they cause. It is a scientific certainty that cosmic rays will have an effect on the increased particulates we now have, whereas there could be zero effects with clean skies.
Click to expand...

There were fewer man-made aerosols but there were plenty of aerosols that could have been acted on.
In fact, I saw the claim that cosmic rays had more of an effect on cloud formation in pre-industrial times.
Perhaps because of more interference by a different (dirtier) mix today.
Regardless, the fact that the IPCC continues to resist the notion that there are many climate influences of great(er?) significance other than CO2 is a sign they're too defensive to be genuine.
 
bubbabgone said:
There were fewer man-made aerosols but there were plenty of aerosols that could have been acted on.
In fact, I saw the claim that cosmic rays had more of an effect on cloud formation in pre-industrial times.
Perhaps because of more interference by a different (dirtier) mix today.
Regardless, the fact that the IPCC continues to resist the notion that there are many climate influences of great(er?) significance other than CO2 is a sign they're too defensive to be genuine.
Click to expand...

What's the influence that has had greater significance over the last 30 years?

And where's the reference for your assertion... because I'm guessing it was from a Sean Hannity show, but I could be wrong.
 
bubbabgone said:
There were fewer man-made aerosols but there were plenty of aerosols that could have been acted on.
In fact, I saw the claim that cosmic rays had more of an effect on cloud formation in pre-industrial times.
Perhaps because of more interference by a different (dirtier) mix today.
Regardless, the fact that the IPCC continues to resist the notion that there are many climate influences of great(er?) significance other than CO2 is a sign they're too defensive to be genuine.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that is incorrect, but I am far from perfect at remembering everything. Especially since I have never tried learning much of cosmic rays.

That said, my understand ins that cosmic rays are only effective on particle sizes closer to colloids. I.e, particles too small to see with a microscope, and suspended in the atmospheric water. Natural particles like swept up sand and dirt are too large for cosmic rays to affect. Perhaps volcanic aerosols and aerosols from forest fires have an effect, but that is still way short of what we have put in the atmosphere starting in the 20th century.
 
Threegoofs said:
What's the influence that has had greater significance over the last 30 years?

And where's the reference for your assertion... because I'm guessing it was from a Sean Hannity show, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know.

Do you know what the factors that influence the climate are? Please list the top 10 with the percentage to which they will cause warming or cooling to be recorded by our instrumentation.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I don't know.

Do you know what the factors that influence the climate are? Please list the top 10 with the percentage to which they will cause warming or cooling to be recorded by our instrumentation.
Click to expand...

You, of course, weren't asked.

Because I already *know* you don't know.

This might help you understand more:

165f9a3955f7859de2f733e9f1ca3c78.gif
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, I think that is incorrect, but I am far from perfect at remembering everything. Especially since I have never tried learning much of cosmic rays.

That said, my understand ins that cosmic rays are only effective on particle sizes closer to colloids. I.e, particles too small to see with a microscope, and suspended in the atmospheric water. Natural particles like swept up sand and dirt are too large for cosmic rays to affect. Perhaps volcanic aerosols and aerosols from forest fires have an effect, but that is still way short of what we have put in the atmosphere starting in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

It sure looks like we all better start learning more about the effects of cosmic rays instead of letting the IPCC dismiss their effect.

But anyway, what you say about conditions that need to exist in order to make cosmic rays most effective in cloud formation is true as far as it goes.
What the CERN experiments have shown is that there are naturally forming aerosols that also interact with cosmic rays. Sulfuric acid aerosols and such are not required.

Previously, it was thought that sulphuric acid was essential to initiate the formation of these aerosol particles but the new research shows that these so-called biogenic vapours are also key to their growth, and can help them grow up to sizes where they can seed clouds.
Click to expand...
http://home.cern/about/updates/2016/05/cloud-shows-pre-industrial-skies-cloudier-we-thought

Solar magnetic strength does map more closely to temperature strength than does CO2.
That said, even when permitted to get through the atmosphere when solar magnetism is weaker, cosmic rays don't strike the earth equally across the globe and not all clouds that form will be of the cooling type.
I mention those because the IPCC has a lot to lose and we should expect they'll be using anything to dismiss the effect of cosmic rays with the same determination they dismiss every climate influence that isn't CO2.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I don't know.

Do you know what the factors that influence the climate are? Please list the top 10 with the percentage to which they will cause warming or cooling to be recorded by our instrumentation.
Click to expand...

Don't bother.
He doesn't speak in words.
He thinks intimidation is his great equalizer apparently unaware that everyone noticed that long ago.
He speaks in images he doesn't understand enough to convert into language.
 
bubbabgone said:
Don't bother.
He doesn't speak in words.
He thinks intimidation is his great equalizer apparently unaware that everyone noticed that long ago.
He speaks in images he doesn't understand enough to convert into language.
Click to expand...

The question asked was directed to YOU. Looks like you have time to be snarky but not to actually back up your statement.

Again:

What's the influence that has had greater significance over the last 30 years?

And where's the reference for your assertion... because I'm guessing it was from a Sean Hannity show, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
You, of course, weren't asked.

Because I already *know* you don't know.

This might help you understand more:

165f9a3955f7859de2f733e9f1ca3c78.gif
Click to expand...

So you know, but those pesky anti-science professors of physics at CERN are just barking up the wrong tree then. Eh?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
In the long term we will likely adapt. In the short term it will suck given how much of our population and infrastructure is along the coasts.
Click to expand...

A few foot rise in sea level will solve most of Florida's crime and political problems (cough cough Miami cough cough).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Official Climate Agenda is Always the Negative Side; Never Fair and Balanced

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” Sherlock Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.” Holmes: “That was the curious incident.” A recent article titled “Two Competing…
Continue reading →

. . . From the start, the IPCC objective was deliberately and carefully orchestrated to demonize carbon dioxide. The larger structure saw Working Group I prove that the human portion of atmospheric carbon dioxide was causing global warming – they never even considered the null hypothesis. Working Groups II and III accepted that finding without question. The positive side of many variables was ignored. This includes the fact that while humans add carbon dioxide, they also remove an estimated 50 percent of what they add, but only the gross figure was ever used. This bias pervades all the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from the definition of climate change given to the IPCC to the standard environmental escape hatch of the precautionary principle identified as Principle 15 of Agenda 21. . . .

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom