• 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

Ah, but it can.

[FONT="]". . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity%20"]quantify empirically[/URL][FONT="] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT="]th[/FONT][FONT="] 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]


[LIST]
[*][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK"]Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?[/URL]
[/LIST]

Where's the cloud cover measurement he would require to prove this?
 
If it could, Jack Hays would have shown us the empirical proof.
Actually you were the one who said "Narrator: it cant" in response to the
suggestion that Svensmark's theory could account for .5 C of the observed warming.
So why not?
 
Where's the cloud cover measurement he would require to prove this?
Where are the measurements to prove CO2's climate sensitivity?
 
Like I said on another thread, they will become the deniers ... the flat-earthers.
How sweet is that?
I take exception to your use of the future tense word, "will".
 
Cloud cover is integral to the mechanism of cosmic ray influence on climate.

Yes, but you still haven't shown why it's needed for proof in this case. Variations in climate and cosmic ray flux already show the relationship.
 
Yes, but you still haven't shown why it's needed for proof in this case. Variations in climate and cosmic ray flux already show the relationship.

You can plot autism diagnoses alongside organic food sales, this isn't showing that one causes the other.

If cloud cover changes can't account for the change in temperature, how exactly is cosmically rays' influence proven?
 
You can plot autism diagnoses alongside organic food sales, this isn't showing that one causes the other.

If cloud cover changes can't account for the change in temperature, how exactly is cosmically rays' influence proven?

Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

". . . Today, there is ample evidence to support this picture (a succinct introduction can be found here). For example, it was found that independent galactic induced variations in the cosmic ray flux, which have nothing to do with solar activity do too affect climate as one should expect from such a link. There are many more examples. [Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): These recently published experimental resultsstrongly point towards the validity of this link, as expected] . . . "

Cosmic Rays and Climate

". . . Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980's. By the mid 1990's, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.

crcFig3.jpg
Figure 3: The correlation between cosmic ray flux (orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and the low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003.


The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.
[FONT=&quot]To begin with, climate variations appear to arise also from intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations, namely, from variations that have nothing to do with solar activity modulations. This removes any doubt that the observed solar activity cloud cover correlations are coincidental or without an actual causal connection. That is to say, it removes the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently the climate, such that we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]think[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that the cosmic rays and climate are related, where in fact they are not. Specifically, cosmic ray flux variations also arise from the varying environment around the solar system, as it journeys around the Milky Way. These variations appear to have left a paleoclimatic imprint in the geological records. [/FONT]. . ."
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]Full journal reference
H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
The paper is here http://www.nature.com/ncomms


Do you have something that is not in a 'pay to publish' place? "nature communication" is one of the 'pay to publish' sites, and there are issues with them

Open access is not the problem – my take on Science’s peer review “sting” • The Berkeley Blog
 
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....
Showing a chart of 14 years of data with no source, AND a typo (it's "CERES," not "CERIS")? Impressive. What denier site did you pull that from?


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.
Or:

We know how greenhouse gases work; we know that CO2, methane and other gases produced by human activities are greenhouse gases; we have a variety of tools to estimate past CO2 amounts, and tools to measure current CO2 amounts in the atmosphere. On that basis, we can make predictions such as "as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise, temperatures will also rise."

In order for Svensmark to make a solid case, he'd have to explain what we are currently seeing. However, his model predicts the opposite. There hasn't been significant change in cosmic rays over the past 50-60 years; in fact, cosmic ray flux has fallen slightly since 1970, while temperatures keep rising. Numerous studies have not found a significant correlation between cosmic ray flux and global temperatures.

And of course, none of what he's writing actually disproves the facts that a) greenhouse gases trap heat, b) the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are steadily rising, c) human activity is responsible for most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and d) temperatures keep rising, while his claims suggest they should have been falling since the 1970s.

I.e. Svensmark is not, in fact, providing a valid alternative to mainstream theories. Not by a long shot. While cosmic ray flux may be having a small effect on global temperatures, the reality is that he's just providing fodder to people who Desperate Deniers.

What is really fascinating is that the deniers give Svensmark a pass on completely and publicly blowing his predictions, while screaming that legitimate scientists whose predictions are on the low end of projections is "proof" that those projections are so utterly wrong that everyone should ignore them forever.
 
Do you have something that is not in a 'pay to publish' place? "nature communication" is one of the 'pay to publish' sites, and there are issues with them

Open access is not the problem – my take on Science’s peer review “sting” • The Berkeley Blog

You could not be more wrong. Nature Communications is an offshoot of Nature, among the most prestigious journals in the world.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Nature Communications
Peer-reviewed journal




[/COLOR]
Nature Communications is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Nature Publishing Group since 2010. It covers the natural sciences, including physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, and biology.Wikipedia




Impact factor:12.124 (2016)


CODEN:NCAOBW


Editors:David Gevaux, Niki Scaplehorn


People also search for:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Scientific Reports, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Nano Letters, Nature Materials, Advanced Materials, MORE




 
Sing a song to Svensmark....

Anonymuse returns
Cosmic rays are warming Earth,
I read it in the news.
Polar bears are losing hairs,
And Eskimos have the blues.

The whole damed world has gone to hell,
And never will come back.
I wish those aliens would just go away,
And call off their attack.

Rabett Run
 
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

[FONT=&]". . . Today, there is ample evidence to support this picture (a succinct introduction can be found [/FONT]here[FONT=&]). For example, it was found that independent galactic induced variations in the cosmic ray flux, which have nothing to do with solar activity do too [/FONT]affect climate[FONT=&] as one should expect from such a link. There are many more examples. [/FONT][Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): These recently published experimental resultsstrongly point towards the validity of this link, as expected] . . . "

Cosmic Rays and Climate

[FONT=&]". . . Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980's. By the mid 1990's, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.[/FONT]

[FONT=&]
crcFig3.jpg
Figure 3: The correlation between cosmic ray flux (orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and the low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.
[/FONT][FONT="]To begin with, climate variations appear to arise also from intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations, namely, from variations that have nothing to do with solar activity modulations. This removes any doubt that the observed solar activity cloud cover correlations are coincidental or without an actual causal connection. That is to say, it removes the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently the climate, such that we [/FONT][FONT="]think[/FONT][FONT="] that the cosmic rays and climate are related, where in fact they are not. Specifically, cosmic ray flux variations also arise from the varying environment around the solar system, as it journeys around the Milky Way. These variations appear to have left a paleoclimatic imprint in the geological records. [/FONT][FONT=&]. . ."[/FONT]

That chart doesn't match the trend of temperature at all!
 
You could not be more wrong. Nature Communications is an offshoot of Nature, among the most prestigious journals in the world.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]Nature Communications
Peer-reviewed journal




[/COLOR]
Nature Communications is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Nature Publishing Group since 2010. It covers the natural sciences, including physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, and biology.Wikipedia




Impact factor:12.124 (2016)


CODEN:NCAOBW


Editors:David Gevaux, Niki Scaplehorn


People also search for:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Scientific Reports, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Nano Letters, Nature Materials, Advanced Materials, MORE





Yes, it's an offshoot of nature, but it's still 'pay to publish'

https://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/article-processing-charges
 
That chart doesn't match the trend of temperature at all!

Actually not too bad.

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Base Period 1981-2010 – Click the pic to view at source
 
They charge a fee to prevent frivolous submissions. This is a non-issue deflection.

NO, it's demonstrates its' pay for publish'. I know you want to believe it, but frankly, your sources.. are insufficient and not worthy.
 
NO, it's demonstrates its' pay for publish'. I know you want to believe it, but frankly, your sources.. are insufficient and not worthy.

BS. If you don't approve of the journal then don't participate in the thread. One fewer dishonest participant will improve the discussion.
 
BS. If you don't approve of the journal then don't participate in the thread. One fewer dishonest participant will improve the discussion.

I think sources are very important.. and pay for publish is a problem that many people disapprove of. That, and depending on blogs for sources is bad science.
 
I think sources are very important.. and pay for publish is a problem that many people disapprove of. That, and depending on blogs for sources is bad science.

The authors of this paper are highly respected, and their peer review interactions are published with the paper. I don't know how it could be better. Now if you'd care to discuss the actual issues, please do so.
 
The authors of this paper are highly respected, and their peer review interactions are published with the paper. I don't know how it could be better. Now if you'd care to discuss the actual issues, please do so.

Well, for one, the corrlation between the solar miniumn and earth is well known, and it only effects things by 1 degree, which is not enogh to overcome the greenhouse gasses.

Grand_Solar_Min_1024.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom