• 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!

Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

[h=3]The missing link between exploding stars, clouds, and climate on ...[/h]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.htm



5 hours ago - Journal Reference: H. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, J. Svensmark. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. Nature Communications, 2017; 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2 ...
 
[h=3]Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ... - Nature[/h]https://www.nature.com › nature communications › articles
9 hours ago - Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to ...
 
The missing link between exploding stars, clouds, and climate on Earth

https://phys.org › Earth › Earth Sciences


8 hours ago - It gives an understanding of how changes caused by solar activity or by supernova activity can change climate," says Henrik Svensmark, from DTU ... More information: H. Svensmark et al, Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications (2017).

A breakthrough in the understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth's cloud cover and therefore its climate is published today in the journal Nature Communications. The study reveals that atmospheric ions, produced by energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, help the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei—the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere.
When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes, affecting the properties of clouds. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. Since clouds are essential for the amount of solar energy reaching the surface of Earth, the implications are significant for the understanding of past climate variation and also for future climate changes. . . .

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-link-stars-clouds-climate-earth.html#jCp
 
This doesn't shake climate research to its core. That's absurd. This is just one small piece of a very complex system. Interesting research, and useful, but you folks need to quit acting like this guy is overturning geocentricism.
 
This doesn't shake climate research to its core. That's absurd. This is just one small piece of a very complex system. Interesting research, and useful, but you folks need to quit acting like this guy is overturning geocentricism.

He is overturning AGW-centrism.
 
Schmidt's tweets show him to be uninformed or lying. Please see #19, #20, #21 and #22.

Schmidt promotes himself on twitter using his own blog where he uses himself as a source.
What could be wrong with that?
 
Last edited:
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify ... - Wiley Online Library

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JA012989/full
by NJ Shaviv - ‎2008 - ‎Cited by 30 - ‎Related articles
Nov 4, 2008 - With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the ...

[h=2]Abstract[/h][FONT=&quot][1] Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one. . . . [/FONT]
 
He is overturning AGW-centrism.
I think if Svensmark's theory can account for .5 C of the warming from last century,
it does indeed throw considerable doubt on AGW being the primary cause of the observed warming.
 
I think if Svensmark's theory can account for .5 C of the warming from last century,
it does indeed throw considerable doubt on AGW being the primary cause of the observed warming.

Narrator: it cant
 
Unfortunately, it appears Schmidt is either uninformed or lying. The theoretical and experimental research results reported in this paper did not exist in 2006.
From the OP:
The hypothesis in a nutshell

  • Cosmic rays, high-energy particles raining down from exploded stars, knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions, that is, positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere.
  • The ions help aerosols – clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules – to form and become stable against evaporation. This process is called nucleation. The small aerosols need to grow nearly a million times in mass in order to have an effect on clouds.
  • The second role of ions is that they accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei – seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. The more ions the more aerosols become cloud condensation nuclei. It is this second property of ions which is the new result published in Nature Communications.
  • Low clouds made with liquid water droplets cool the Earth’s surface.
  • Variations in the Sun’s magnetic activity alter the influx of cosmic rays to the Earth.
  • When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.
  • When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.
  • The implications of the study suggests that the mechanism can have affected:
  • The climate changes observed during the 20th century
  • The coolings and warmings of around 2°C that have occurred repeatedly over the past 10,000 years, as the Sun’s activity and the cosmic ray influx have varied.
  • The much larger variations of up to 10°C occurring as the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars.

Yes.

The head of GISS is uninformed.

Or lying, because he’s desperate to deflect the massive success of Svensmark.

[emoji849]
 
Yes.

The head of GISS is uninformed.

Or lying, because he’s desperate to deflect the massive success of Svensmark.

[emoji849]

His tweets must indicate either ignorance of the research result or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, so yes, he's either lying or uninformed.
 
Narrator: it cant

Why not? Remember there is scant empirical evidence about anything in the entire concept
known as AGW, Even the Top of atmosphere predicted energy imbalance from 2XCO2 is not measured, but calculated.
The only real measurements have from the CERES satellite between 2001 and 1016, show that CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.
 
Narrator: it cant

Ah, but it can.

[FONT=&quot]". . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005). . . ."[/FONT]


 
Why not? Remember there is scant empirical evidence about anything in the entire concept
known as AGW...
Sure, if you ignore an abundance of evidence produced by scientific instruments distributed around the globe, along with the research of thousands of scientists working in different nations and for different employers, along with the fundamental understanding that "greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere to warm" combined with "oh yeah, human activity is throwing literally tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
 
Sure, if you ignore an abundance of evidence produced by scientific instruments distributed around the globe, along with the research of thousands of scientists working in different nations and for different employers, along with the fundamental understanding that "greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere to warm" combined with "oh yeah, human activity is throwing literally tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The weakness of AGW work has always been that correlation could be shown but not causation. Nothing above touches causation except the postulated​ greenhouse gas effect. Meanwhile, per Shaviv:

[FONT=&quot]". . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005). . . ."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2016 - To deduce the lw absorptivity at cloudiness from the radiation transfer calculations, the absorbed intensity listed in column 6 of Table 3, which now reflects the total absorption caused by the GH gases and the clouds, has to be reduced by the cloud fraction.

[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
 
It's a reminder why we have the word "unseemly" in our language.

- Ironically enough, Schmidt shares the blog with Mann and Bradley, of hockey stick fame.
Is there a statute of limitations on crimes of deliberate climate deception?
hmmm, Schmidt and Mann have a disturbing resemblance.
You think alarmist socks are used to swell their ranks?
- You've seen how some suggest alarmism has been right, skeptics have been wrong, the warming pause never happened, etc.
Remember the cooling that ended in the 70's was supposed to be the next ice age?
Remember the truly crappy alarmist predictions by truly crappy alarmist charlatans?
- You still see people talk about warmest year ever.
You'd think by now they'd realize you can make a graph show anything you want if you choose the right time frame, gradation and vertices.
Of course, the success of such deception depends entirely on the susceptibility and intellectual inertia of the reader.
 
- Ironically enough, Schmidt shares the blog with Mann and Bradley, of hockey stick fame.
Is there a statute of limitations on crimes of deliberate climate deception?
hmmm, Schmidt and Mann have a disturbing resemblance.
You think alarmist socks are used to swell their ranks?
- You've seen how some suggest alarmism has been right, skeptics have been wrong, the warming pause never happened, etc.
Remember the cooling that ended in the 70's was supposed to be the next ice age?
Remember the truly crappy alarmist predictions by truly crappy alarmist charlatans?
- You still see people talk about warmest year ever.
You'd think by now they'd realize you can make a graph show anything you want if you choose the right time frame, gradation and vertices.
Of course, the success of such deception depends entirely on the susceptibility and intellectual inertia of the reader.

I think it may soon began to dawn on some of the more honest (or, perhaps, more ambitious:mrgreen:) of the AGW advocates that their world is about to change.
 
Sure, if you ignore an abundance of evidence produced by scientific instruments distributed around the globe, along with the research of thousands of scientists working in different nations and for different employers, along with the fundamental understanding that "greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere to warm" combined with "oh yeah, human activity is throwing literally tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The most certain portion of AGW is the CO2 forcing, The added CO2 will cause an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere,
that will "force" the lower atmosphere to warm up.
The only actual empirical data we have for this is the CERES satellite data, and it show a much lower
level of energy imbalance than was assumed in the predictive models.
In fact the CERES net FLUX, has not changed much at all.
CERES.jpg
The best we could say is that there may be some sort of signal, hiding in the noise.
You cannot point to any effect, and then back into a cause, unless there is only one scientific pathway to follow.
Svensmark's work, shows that there are other possible pathways.
 
I think it may soon began to dawn on some of the more honest (or, perhaps, more ambitious:mrgreen:) of the AGW advocates that their world is about to change.

Didn't Lennart Bengtsson show a lean away from alarmism a few years ago?
Why, yes ... yes he has.

Bengtsson: I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation.
...
I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC. Nor have the cooling and increase in sea ice around Antarctica been properly recognized. Climate science must be focussed to understand such matters much better and for this reason it is appropriate to have an open mind and not follow the IPCC as believers of a religious faith.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/03/lennart-bengtsson-speaks-out/
 
I think it may soon began to dawn on some of the more honest (or, perhaps, more ambitious:mrgreen:) of the AGW advocates that their world is about to change.

Like I said on another thread, they will become the deniers ... the flat-earthers.
How sweet is that?
 
Why not? Remember there is scant empirical evidence about anything in the entire concept
known as AGW, Even the Top of atmosphere predicted energy imbalance from 2XCO2 is not measured, but calculated.
The only real measurements have from the CERES satellite between 2001 and 1016, show that CO2 has a much lower sensitivity.

If it could, Jack Hays would have shown us the empirical proof.
 
Back
Top Bottom