• 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!

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

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
Here is a review of the research which, I believe, will ultimately result in the displacement of the AGW hypothesis as the centerpiece of climate science.

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/indirect-effects-of-the-sun-of-earths-climate/


Jun 10, 2017 - In 2003, Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder in the book The Chilling Stars [1] described how ..... “Edward B Hanley June 10, 2017 at 6:53 pm

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.
In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. . . .
Back in 1997, when Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first floated their hypothesis on the effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) on Earth’s climate, it shook the world of climate science. But it was going to take a lot more than a shake to dislodge climate science’s autocrats. Their entrenched position was that climate was primarily driven by greenhouse gases, and that consequently man-made CO2 would be catastrophic (the CAGW hypothesis), and they were going to do whatever it took to protect their turf. . . .

Here we are, twenty years after the GCR hypothesis was first floated, and the CAGW paradigm is still in place and virtually unscathed. This is in spite of increasing evidence supporting Cosmoclimatology and in spite of the epic failure of climate models to predict climate. Paradigm protection has been seen many times in science, but I wonder whether it has ever been as corrupt and as extreme as it currently is in climate science.
I should have mentioned that there was strong opposition against experimental testing of Cosmoclimatology. Think about that – scientists trying to prevent a thoery being tested – and I think you will agree that my use of the word “corrupt” in the previous paragraph was justified. . . .
I hope to live long enough to see Henrik Svensmark receive the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Will climate science now recognise that it has been getting everything wrong for decades? I doubt it. Not until their leaders can be removed and replaced by scientists who will give as much critical scrutiny to CAGW as they do to competing theories. . . .
 
Strong opposition to testing these things!

Like when they did those tests at CERN. SO OPPOSED!
 
Strong opposition to testing these things!

Like when they did those tests at CERN. SO OPPOSED!

". . . By 2006, the CLOUD experiment had been designed to test the mechanisms in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, a pre-experiment had been completed to check the validity of the main experiment, and by 2008 five new groups had joined the CLOUD collaboration [10], but the main experiment was taking a long time to get going. Opposition from mainstream climate scientists wasn’t exactly helping. So the DTU team decided to conduct their own experiment.
With help from Aarhus University, the team went back to the SKY cloud chamber, to conduct more advanced experiments, with the aim of demonstrating the complete mechanism by which GCRs create clouds.
The result was reported by Enghoff et al in their 2010 paper Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam [11].
They reported: “We find a clear and significant contribution from ion induced nucleation and consider this to be an unambiguous observation of the ion-effect on aerosol nucleation using a particle beam under conditions not far from the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison with ionization using a gamma source we further show that the nature of the ionizing particles is not important for the ion component of the nucleation.“.
3.4 The CLOUD Experiment

CERN’s CLOUD experiment reported its results in 2011. But shortly before that, the director-general of CERN made the extraordinary statement that the report would be politically correct about climate change. Nigel Calder explained it thus: “The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.“.
When the result was published in Nature [12] the next day, in Nigel Calder’s words it “clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds“.
Nigel Calder actually said rather more than that (read the full article). In particular: “[The new CLOUD paper is] so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph.

Figure 9. The graph from the CLOUD paper.


A graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds.
I can only suppose that leaving such an important graph out of the printed paper is what the CERN director-general meant by “politically correct”. . . ."
 
How can anyone think that CO2 has feedback effects, but the sun doesn't?
 

[h=1]Freeman Dyson on ‘heretical’ thoughts about global warmimg[/h]By Freeman Dyson My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I…
Continue reading →
 
Who claimed the sun has no feedback effects?

You, for one. Every time I have stated such feedback, you deny the science of it.
 
You, for one. Every time I have stated such feedback, you deny the science of it.

No, that's just your perception. You're misled by your partisan bias. On numerous occasions I have pointed out that CO2 has often acted as a feedback for solar insolation changes. Do you deny this?
 
I think CO2's are a contributing factor to global warming, but the amount to which they contribute to warming has been exaggerated
 
You, for one. Every time I have stated such feedback, you deny the science of it
Meteorology is a science also, and look how many times they get the weather forecast wrong.

If they cant forecast the weather accurately, then how the hell can they predict what the climate will be 50 years from now??
 
Meteorology is a science also, and look how many times they get the weather forecast wrong.

If they cant forecast the weather accurately, then how the hell can they predict what the climate will be 50 years from now??

Because forecasting climate is actually easier than forecasting weather. They're predicting general averages over the planet, as opposed to specific days and specific weather in specific locations.
 
Well on a good note they now know the Sun aint a light bulb. Congrats for that.
 
Because forecasting climate is actually easier than forecasting weather. They're predicting general averages over the planet, as opposed to specific days and specific weather in specific locations.

Then why do models fail?
 
Because forecasting climate is actually easier than forecasting weather. They're predicting general averages over the planet, as opposed to specific days and specific weather in specific locations
Okay, but there are too many variables and questions marks when it comes to predicting the climate.

For example, if earth supposedly warmed up by 1 degree over the last century, how could scientists possibly know for sure if that 1 degree (or a large part of that 1 degree) wasnt part of earth's natural warming/cooling cycles that it goes through?? Or if it was mostly due to manmade warming??
 
Then why do models fail?

Issues with the models aren't as severe as you've been told to believe. Most people, yourself included, don't really understand the math behind it well enough to analyze how you're being lied to.
 
Last edited:
Okay, but there are too many variables and questions marks when it comes to predicting the climate.

For example, if earth supposedly warmed up by 1 degree over the last century, how could scientists possibly know for sure if that 1 degree (or a large part of that 1 degree) wasnt part of earth's natural warming/cooling cycles that it goes through?? Or if it was mostly due to manmade warming??

Because "natural cycles" aren't some magical, mysterious force that spontaneously alters the earth's temperature. They're measurable and testable and predictable like any other aspect of physics. As an example, we've been observing the sun's output for a long time now. The sun's output increased from about 150-50 years ago, but leveled off at that point. (and most recently dipped in output) We can measure milankovich cycles, which are regular "wobbles" in various aspects of the earth's orbit. (axial tilt, eccentricity, obliquity, etc) We can measure volcanic eruptions and the amount of light they scatter back into space.

Climate science is very complicated, people have been researching it for decades. Your gut isn't good enough at math to just handwave it all. You say "too many variables," why? Because you say so?
 
Issues with the models aren't as severe as you've been told to believe. Most people, yourself included, don't really understand the math behind it well enough to analyze how you're being lied to.


What a load of paradigm-protection BS.
 
I think CO2's are a contributing factor to global warming, but the amount to which they contribute to warming has been exaggerated

I also think that blankets are a hoax. Their contribution to warm feet has been exaggerated too.
 
Issues with the models aren't as severe as you've been told to believe. Most people, yourself included, don't really understand the math behind it well enough to analyze how you're being lied to.


[h=1]Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly[/h]A new paper has been published in Geophysical Research Letters that shows once again, that climate models and reality significantly vary. It confirms what Dr. John Christy has been saying (see figure below). The paper also references Dr. Judith Curry and her work. Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century…

June 28, 2017 in Climate Models.
 
Because "natural cycles" aren't some magical, mysterious force that spontaneously alters the earth's temperature. They're measurable and testable and predictable like any other aspect of physics. As an example, we've been observing the sun's output for a long time now. The sun's output increased from about 150-50 years ago, but leveled off at that point
Exactly my point. That is WAY too small of a sample size.
Earth is an estimated 4 billion years old, you would have to have data for those entire 4 billion years to get a complete picture. 150 years is just a blip on the screen. Temperatures going back to 2,500 BC is a bit better to give us a clearer picture, and when you look at that chart there clearly have been warming periods in the past, and there were no fossil fuels around at that time

warming1.jpg
 
Here is a review of the research which, I believe, will ultimately result in the displacement of the AGW hypothesis as the centerpiece of climate science.

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/indirect-effects-of-the-sun-of-earths-climate/


Jun 10, 2017 - In 2003, Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder in the book The Chilling Stars [1] described how ..... “Edward B Hanley June 10, 2017 at 6:53 pm

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.
In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. . . .
Back in 1997, when Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first floated their hypothesis on the effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) on Earth’s climate, it shook the world of climate science. But it was going to take a lot more than a shake to dislodge climate science’s autocrats. Their entrenched position was that climate was primarily driven by greenhouse gases, and that consequently man-made CO2 would be catastrophic (the CAGW hypothesis), and they were going to do whatever it took to protect their turf. . . .

Here we are, twenty years after the GCR hypothesis was first floated, and the CAGW paradigm is still in place and virtually unscathed. This is in spite of increasing evidence supporting Cosmoclimatology and in spite of the epic failure of climate models to predict climate. Paradigm protection has been seen many times in science, but I wonder whether it has ever been as corrupt and as extreme as it currently is in climate science.
I should have mentioned that there was strong opposition against experimental testing of Cosmoclimatology. Think about that – scientists trying to prevent a thoery being tested – and I think you will agree that my use of the word “corrupt” in the previous paragraph was justified. . . .
I hope to live long enough to see Henrik Svensmark receive the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Will climate science now recognise that it has been getting everything wrong for decades? I doubt it. Not until their leaders can be removed and replaced by scientists who will give as much critical scrutiny to CAGW as they do to competing theories. . . .

How are the Suns effects on the Earth indirect?
 

[h=1]Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly[/h]A new paper has been published in Geophysical Research Letters that shows once again, that climate models and reality significantly vary. It confirms what Dr. John Christy has been saying (see figure below). The paper also references Dr. Judith Curry and her work. Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century…

June 28, 2017 in Climate Models.

Another link from the High Schooler, Watts. If you are going to quote a scientist, why don't you quote from a scientific organization? We quote from the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC. You quote from a High Schooler.

According to the National Climate Assessment, the Models have been very accurate. If anything they have understated the degree of Ice Melt and Sea Level Rise.

And NO, your claim is unwarranted, that the models aren't accurate. If anything, the scientific models have been too conservative.

Overview | National Climate Assessment

It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.

Granted this isn't from a High Schooler, but maybe you'll be able to rise to the level.
 
Another link from the High Schooler, Watts. If you are going to quote a scientist, why don't you quote from a scientific organization? We quote from the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC. You quote from a High Schooler.

According to the National Climate Assessment, the Models have been very accurate. If anything they have understated the degree of Ice Melt and Sea Level Rise.

And NO, your claim is unwarranted, that the models aren't accurate. If anything, the scientific models have been too conservative.

Overview | National Climate Assessment

It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.

Granted this isn't from a High Schooler, but maybe you'll be able to rise to the level.

The paper was published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The paper is here: Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century - Kravtsov - 2017 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
The SI is here: https://people.uwm.edu/kravtsov/files/2016/05/Supporting-Information_AGU

Plain Language Summary
Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling. Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of the observed variability and misrepresent its spatial pattern. Therefore, our ability to interpret the observed climate change using these models is limited.
Abstract
Identification and dynamical attribution of multidecadal climate undulations to either variations in external forcings or to internal sources is one of the most important topics of modern climate science, especially in conjunction with the issue of human-induced global warming. Here we utilize ensembles of twentieth century climate simulations to isolate the forced signal and residual internal variability in a network of observed and modeled climate indices. The observed internal variability so estimated exhibits a pronounced multidecadal mode with a distinctive spatiotemporal signature, which is altogether absent in model simulations. This single mode explains a major fraction of model-data differences over the entire climate index network considered; it may reflect either biases in the models’ forced response or models’ lack
of requisite internal dynamics, or a combination of both.


 
Last edited:
Exactly my point. That is WAY too small of a sample size.
Earth is an estimated 4 billion years old, you would have to have data for those entire 4 billion years to get a complete picture. 150 years is just a blip on the screen. Temperatures going back to 2,500 BC is a bit better to give us a clearer picture, and when you look at that chart there clearly have been warming periods in the past, and there were no fossil fuels around at that time

warming1.jpg

Um, hang on a second. Are you under the impression anyone is suggesting that fossil fuels are the only thing that has ever affected climate at any point in all of history?

Because let me help you out with a really, really big thing you've missed: Nobody is arguing that. In the past, climate has absolutely changed through natural means, for a variety of reasons. Feel better now?
 
Back
Top Bottom