• 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

Sunsettommy said:
One again your reply doesn't acknowledge this in its implication:



Cosmic rays does at least create some of the formation of particles being formed.

In all of my postings to you and Visbeck in the thread, Never said that it was a fully validated hypothesis, only disputing that it is fully invalidated.

That is why my friends are laughing at your highly selective claims as they are misleading and dishonest.

Svenmark's hypothesis has a long ways to go to be a fully validated hypothesis, which is why I keep an open mind on it, but you guys seem in a hurry to slam it down without merit.
Click to expand...

Your own reference slammed it down.

Yes, cosmic rays do stuff.

No, it doesn’t affect climate very much if at all.

That’s the link YOU posted.
 
Sunsettommy said:
From your own quote,

"Correlations between cosmic ray flux and observed aerosol or cloud properties are weak and local at best, and do not prove to be robust on the regional or global scale."

Correlations?
Click to expand...
Yes... Correlations. Let me guess, you think that all correlations are "one-sided" too? Or do you simply not know what "correlation" means?


Not only that they left out papers that are SUPPORTIVE of his hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you had bothered to read the full section, you'd see that is not correct. They discuss Pruppacher and Klett; Brian Tinsley; Palle Bago and Butler; Laken; Rohs; Carlslaw; Usokin and Kovaltsov... etc


From Nature,

Jasmin Tröstl, Wayne K. Chuang[…]Urs Baltensperger

Nature volume 533, pages 527–531 (26 May 2016)
Click to expand...
Wow. You showed me.

Oh, wait. The cutoff date for the latest IPCC assessment was MARCH 2013. Your links are from 2016. Was the IPCC supposed to travel forward in time to give Svensmark some more slack?

And when they did so, were they supposed to ignore all the papers written after 2013, which reject Svensmark's theory? Do you really need me to link to the half dozen or so papers that do so? Oh wait, I already did. IN A RESPONSE TO YOU. (https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...crs-clouds-and-climate-74.html#post1068268383)

Unsurprisingly, you apparently don't actually understand what you're reading. Its claim is that organic compounds (mostly from trees) may have gone into the atmosphere, and formed clouds/aerosols. They discussing pre-industrial periods, because human beings have thrown so much sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, that mechanism no longer works. Oops.

Ironically, the 2nd article... Oh wait, all it does is summarizes your first link. If you had bothered to read it. Oops.

We should also note that even given your misunderstanding of the article, there are still numerous issues researchers have found with Svensmark's work, which that article doesn't resolve -- e.g. failed correlations, failed predictions, lab experiments to the contrary, empirical evidence to the contrary.... But hey, any port in a storm.
 
Threegoofs said:
Your own reference slammed it down.

Yes, cosmic rays do stuff.

No, it doesn’t affect climate very much if at all.

That’s the link YOU posted.
Click to expand...

"Although sulphuric acid has long been known to be important for nucleation, the results show for the first time that observed concentrations of particles throughout the atmosphere can be explained only if additional molecules - organic compounds or ammonia - participate in nucleation. The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed"
Click to expand...

Never said it would drive the atmosphere at all, Dr. Svensmark has already proven there is indeed a real connection between Cosmic Rays changes and the influence on weather via cloud formation. The problem lies in how much effect there really is to it, which is why I have stated his hypothesis is not yet fully validated. It is a complex topic that you seem determined to shut down with your misleading attacks against it.
 
Visbek said:
Yes... Correlations. Let me guess, you think that all correlations are "one-sided" too? Or do you simply not know what "correlation" means?



Actually, if you had bothered to read the full section, you'd see that is not correct. They discuss Pruppacher and Klett; Brian Tinsley; Palle Bago and Butler; Laken; Rohs; Carlslaw; Usokin and Kovaltsov... etc



Wow. You showed me.

Oh, wait. The cutoff date for the latest IPCC assessment was MARCH 2013. Your links are from 2016. Was the IPCC supposed to travel forward in time to give Svensmark some more slack?

And when they did so, were they supposed to ignore all the papers written after 2013, which reject Svensmark's theory? Do you really need me to link to the half dozen or so papers that do so? Oh wait, I already did. IN A RESPONSE TO YOU. (https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...crs-clouds-and-climate-74.html#post1068268383)

Unsurprisingly, you apparently don't actually understand what you're reading. Its claim is that organic compounds (mostly from trees) may have gone into the atmosphere, and formed clouds/aerosols. They discussing pre-industrial periods, because human beings have thrown so much sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, that mechanism no longer works. Oops.

Ironically, the 2nd article... Oh wait, all it does is summarizes your first link. If you had bothered to read it. Oops.

We should also note that even given your misunderstanding of the article, there are still numerous issues researchers have found with Svensmark's work, which that article doesn't resolve -- e.g. failed correlations, failed predictions, lab experiments to the contrary, empirical evidence to the contrary.... But hey, any port in a storm.
Click to expand...

Your reply is hostile and embarrassing since I merely pointed out that there are NEWER papers not covered by the IPCC.

From Wikipedia,

Correlations doesn't prove causations, surely you know this......... Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy?

In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.
Click to expand...

LINK

You should slow down........
 
Sunsettommy said:
Never said it would drive the atmosphere at all, Dr. Svensmark has already proven there is indeed a real connection between Cosmic Rays changes and the influence on weather via cloud formation. The problem lies in how much effect there really is to it, which is why I have stated his hypothesis is not yet fully validated. It is a complex topic that you seem determined to shut down with your misleading attacks against it.
Click to expand...

?

What part of ‘little effect upon climate’ is not clear to you?
 
Sunsettommy said:
Your reply is hostile and embarrassing since I merely pointed out that there are NEWER papers not covered by the IPCC.

From Wikipedia,

Correlations doesn't prove causations, surely you know this......... Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy?



LINK

You should slow down........
Click to expand...

LOL.

When there’s no correlation...it’s pretty stupid to think you can infer causation!


Wow.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Your reply is hostile and embarrassing since I merely pointed out that there are NEWER papers not covered by the IPCC.
Click to expand...
lol

No, you accused the IPCC of leaving out papers that supported Svensmark's theories: "Not only that they left out papers that are SUPPORTIVE of his hypothesis. Which is why I brought up Meta-analysis in the first place. From Nature..." Then you cited papers that were published 3 years after the submission deadline. Oh, and I mentioned numerous papers the IPCC cited which were generally favorable to cosmoclimatology. Many of which were mentioned IN THE PARTS OF THE IPCC REPORT YOU QUOTED.

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.


From Wikipedia,

Correlations doesn't prove causations.....
Click to expand...
lol

Svensmark claimed their were correlations. In fact, those alleged correlations seems to be what set him on this research path in the first place.
In the search for a physical mechanism that could account for reported correlations between solar activity parameters and climate, we have investigated the global cloud cover observed by satellites. We find that the observed variation of 34% of the global cloud cover during the recent solar cycle is strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux. (Emphasis added)
ftp://ftp.spacecenter.dk/pub/Henrik/FB/Svensmark1997(GCR-clouds).pdf

According to some researchers, Svensmark improperly manipulated the data in order to make that claim. Ooops.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

As noted, other researchers found that Svensmark's claimed correlations were weak, or were at best regional, and ultimately negligible. (see IPCC sections and articles already mentioned).

Anyway.... If we cannot find any correlations between GCR flux and temperatures, then claims such as "GCR flux causes a significant amount of warming in the 20th century" fall apart. You need to identify robust correlations in the data in order to make that claim.

Amusingly enough, you didn't even bother to read your own Wikipedia link. It points out that scientists do frequently use correlations in order to determine causation. Scientists are well aware that you need to be careful when doing so, as there are lots of variables, thus you need to be careful when running a regression or other statistical analysis. That's why those types of papers thoroughly document their analysis, and other researchers do their own evaluations of such claims -- sometimes supporting the authors' conclusion, other times rejecting it.

Have fun squirming out of your own handiwork.
 
Visbek said:
lol

No, you accused the IPCC of leaving out papers that supported Svensmark's theories: "Not only that they left out papers that are SUPPORTIVE of his hypothesis. Which is why I brought up Meta-analysis in the first place. From Nature..." Then you cited papers that were published 3 years after the submission deadline. Oh, and I mentioned numerous papers the IPCC cited which were generally favorable to cosmoclimatology. Many of which were mentioned IN THE PARTS OF THE IPCC REPORT YOU QUOTED.

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.



lol

Svensmark claimed their were correlations. In fact, those alleged correlations seems to be what set him on this research path in the first place.
In the search for a physical mechanism that could account for reported correlations between solar activity parameters and climate, we have investigated the global cloud cover observed by satellites. We find that the observed variation of 34% of the global cloud cover during the recent solar cycle is strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux. (Emphasis added)
ftp://ftp.spacecenter.dk/pub/Henrik/FB/Svensmark1997(GCR-clouds).pdf

According to some researchers, Svensmark improperly manipulated the data in order to make that claim. Ooops.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

As noted, other researchers found that Svensmark's claimed correlations were weak, or were at best regional, and ultimately negligible. (see IPCC sections and articles already mentioned).

Anyway.... If we cannot find any correlations between GCR flux and temperatures, then claims such as "GCR flux causes a significant amount of warming in the 20th century" fall apart. You need to identify robust correlations in the data in order to make that claim.

Amusingly enough, you didn't even bother to read your own Wikipedia link. It points out that scientists do frequently use correlations in order to determine causation. Scientists are well aware that you need to be careful when doing so, as there are lots of variables, thus you need to be careful when running a regression or other statistical analysis. That's why those types of papers thoroughly document their analysis, and other researchers do their own evaluations of such claims -- sometimes supporting the authors' conclusion, other times rejecting it.

Have fun squirming out of your own handiwork.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
Visbek said:
According to some researchers, Svensmark improperly manipulated the data in order to make that claim. Ooops.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
Click to expand...

There's no jealousy like faculty jealousy.

An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[SUP][25][/SUP] Svensmark replied to the paper, stating that "...nowhere in Peter Laut’s (PL) paper has he been able to explain, where physical data have been handled incorrectly, how the character of my papers are misleading, or where my work does not live up to scientific standards" [SUP][26][/SUP]

[h=2]Search Results[/h]
[h=3]Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark



Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. He is known for his theory on the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation as an indirect cause of global warming. He detailed his work in the book The ...Nationality‎: ‎Danish
Fields‎: ‎Physicist


‎Career · ‎Experimental verification · ‎Debate and controversy · ‎Selected publications







 
Sunsettommy said:
Yes I know about it, just pointing out why satellite data is a better metric to use in assessing the impact of postulated CO2 warm forcing in the atmosphere.

Threegoofs, is ignoring the obvious here because his highly manipulated surface temperature (often GISS) database are in the wrong area. The "hot spot" can't be measured by surface temperature data since it is in the area of a few thousand feet ABOVE the surface. It is the atmosphere....

He is looking a fool here.
Click to expand...

I still have my problems with satellite data for temperatures. They have too few spectra channels to actually know at what level they are seeing what radiative heat. Then as the albedo and emissivity of surface areas change, they aren't really reading temperature either, but adjusting to a temperature.

I am really annoyed that they adjust temperature databases. They really have no way of accurately doing so, and adjustments often end up being the authors fantasy for direction of adjustment.
 
Visbek said:
- In the 5th Assessment -- which you missed, what a shock -- the rejection was even more direct. Since you completely missed it, despite my posting their conclusion MULTIPLE TIMES, here it is:

5th Report / Physical Science Basis
7.4.6.3 Synthesis
Correlations between cosmic ray flux and observed aerosol or cloud properties are weak and local at best, and do not prove to be robust on the regional or global scale. Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or droplets or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. (Bold added)
Click to expand...
Ask yourself. What does "medium evidence" mean in the eyes of the writer and editor of this paragraph? It most definitely is not explicitly saying anything to bet on. "High agreement" among the scientists? Did they actually ask each scientist getting a paycheck to find warning causes, if they actually believed what they were paid to research? I suspect they are only basing this on the papers they selected (cherry picked) to use to make their claims to start with.

Visbek said:
The IPCC has never regarded Svensmark's theories as valid. They do not regard cosmoclimatology as having any sort of significant influence on temperatures. Even Svensmark understands this. I have absolutely no idea why you are incapable of exercising such basic reading comprehension skills. It really is stunning.
Click to expand...
How many political bodies regard anything the opposition says as valid?

The IPCC is a political body! They practice political science, not research science. They amass several papers that build a case for their agenda, and only pick the pieces of each that build their case better.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's no jealousy like faculty jealousy.
Click to expand...
lol

Assertion is not an argument -- and yes, that is literally all Svensmark did. He never provided a formal or mathematical response to Laut's work. Laut points this out here:
Professionaldiscussions of scientific issues are traditionally conducted in scientific journals.Therefore,
it would have beennaturalifSvensmark had submitted the comments, bywhichhe criticizes my article,
to the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in order to have them published as a
peer-reviewed reply article. That wouldn’t have taken more time or effort. And in that case his
comments would have carried the full weight of a proper scientific argument. One can only speculate
why he has chosen, instead, just to put his comments on the homepage of his institute. Offered in this
way- tohis colleagues and the GeneralPublic - his comments cannot avoid creating the impression, that
they only express his personal ideas and could not withstand a critical review.
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdf

Ouch.

Prof Jon Egill Kristjansson, who has also worked on this, not only backs Laut's position, he points out additional issues. To wit: Svensmark's theory suggests that GCR should have increased over the past 50 years, and instead they have... declined. As a result, Kristijansson -- and many other researchers -- concluded that any attempt to apply Svensmark's claims to current warming is ruled out.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
Click to expand...
LOL

This thread has been going for months, and you think now is a good time to link to the entry on Svensmark?

Did you not read it? Of course you didn't. It includes many of the criticisms of his work, including numerous challenges about correlations purported by Svensmark, and how the big summary of CLOUD experiments at CERN show that the mechanism Svensmark proposes "is insufficient to attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and Earth magnetosphere."

Thank you so much for helping me prove my points.
 
Sunsettommy said:
From Nature,

Jasmin Tröstl, Wayne K. Chuang[…]Urs Baltensperger

Nature
volume
533,
pages
527–531 (26 May 2016)
Click to expand...

Wow...

I really wish I had the time to do more studying dealing with this hypothesis. I have a subscription to Nature. That pdf download if 20 pages. The remaining pages are the methods, with several graphics and data attached. At the moment, what I read in this paper thus far is beyond me, as I don't remember enough of the basics dealing with cloud formations. Here is a small sample from their methods:

Untitled.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
They never cover things that might unravel their agenda...
Click to expand...
You do realize that those papers were published AT LEAST THREE YEARS after the cutoff date for the 5th Assessment Report?

And did you miss how the IPCC did, in fact, cite several papers that supported the cosmoclimatology thesis?

So, I guess that ignoring basic logic is, what, your idea of a strong criticism...?
 
Visbek said:
You do realize that those papers were published AT LEAST THREE YEARS after the cutoff date for the 5th Assessment Report?

And did you miss how the IPCC did, in fact, cite several papers that supported the cosmoclimatology thesis?

So, I guess that ignoring basic logic is, what, your idea of a strong criticism...?
Click to expand...

There are other variables they fail to look at in full, especially solar. I don't suspect the 6th report will be any more open to such ideas.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wow...

I really wish I had the time to do more studying dealing with this hypothesis. I have a subscription to Nature. That pdf download if 20 pages. The remaining pages are the methods, with several graphics and data attached. At the moment, what I read in this paper thus far is beyond me, as I don't remember enough of the basics dealing with cloud formations. Here is a small sample from their methods:
Click to expand...
Are you actually saying that you're impressed by mathematics that you can't follow?

Have you really not noticed that papers from all sides of the debate rely on mathematical and statistical analyses?

Anyway.... Since you haven't finished reading it, I guess it makes sense that you missed the part where that article doesn't actually support Svensmark's theories.

And of course, we should remember -- as I've pointed out numerous times already -- how a study from the exact same lab (CLOUD at CERN), examining at 10 years of results, concluded that "nearly all nucleation involves either ammonia or biogenic organic compounds" and "in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation."
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/107269/1/Global atmospheric particle formation.pdf
 
Visbek said:
Are you actually saying that you're impressed by mathematics that you can't follow?

Have you really not noticed that papers from all sides of the debate rely on mathematical and statistical analyses?

Anyway.... Since you haven't finished reading it, I guess it makes sense that you missed the part where that article doesn't actually support Svensmark's theories.

And of course, we should remember -- as I've pointed out numerous times already -- how a study from the exact same lab (CLOUD at CERN), examining at 10 years of results, concluded that "nearly all nucleation involves either ammonia or biogenic organic compounds" and "in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation."
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/107269/1/Global atmospheric particle formation.pdf
Click to expand...

Not the math, but the basics of the chemical formation in the atmosphere, and other factors leading to cloud formations. I simply don't have the time in my life right now to refamiliarize myself with the parts I am weak on.

You obviously don't understand the math, because it doesn't cover the basics I lack. It is modelling that may or may not be close to accurate.

I said I lacked the basics! I have never concerned myself with the nuances of how clouds are formed.

Please stop being a nuisance. Please stay focused on reality. I don't deserve such attacks.

Just because it doesn't explicitly or implicitly support his work, isn't relevant. It does show the same type of aerosol changes he speaks of, and cosmic rays do play a role.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
lol

Assertion is not an argument -- and yes, that is literally all Svensmark did. He never provided a formal or mathematical response to Laut's work. Laut points this out here:
Professionaldiscussions of scientific issues are traditionally conducted in scientific journals.Therefore,
it would have beennaturalifSvensmark had submitted the comments, bywhichhe criticizes my article,
to the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in order to have them published as a
peer-reviewed reply article. That wouldn’t have taken more time or effort. And in that case his
comments would have carried the full weight of a proper scientific argument. One can only speculate
why he has chosen, instead, just to put his comments on the homepage of his institute. Offered in this
way- tohis colleagues and the GeneralPublic - his comments cannot avoid creating the impression, that
they only express his personal ideas and could not withstand a critical review.
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdf

Ouch.

Prof Jon Egill Kristjansson, who has also worked on this, not only backs Laut's position, he points out additional issues. To wit: Svensmark's theory suggests that GCR should have increased over the past 50 years, and instead they have... declined. As a result, Kristijansson -- and many other researchers -- concluded that any attempt to apply Svensmark's claims to current warming is ruled out.



LOL

This thread has been going for months, and you think now is a good time to link to the entry on Svensmark?

Did you not read it? Of course you didn't. It includes many of the criticisms of his work, including numerous challenges about correlations purported by Svensmark, and how the big summary of CLOUD experiments at CERN show that the mechanism Svensmark proposes "is insufficient to attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and Earth magnetosphere."

Thank you so much for helping me prove my points.
Click to expand...

I see you are still smarting from your recent embarrassment. Not my problem. Svensmark simply did not believe Laut's critique merited more attention.

As for Kristjansson, somebody's not paying attention. Warming is associated with lower GCR penetration of Earth's atmosphere, not increase.
 
Visbek said:
This thread has been going for months, and you think now is a good time to link to the entry on Svensmark?

Did you not read it? Of course you didn't. It includes many of the criticisms of his work, including numerous challenges about correlations purported by Svensmark, and how the big summary of CLOUD experiments at CERN show that the mechanism Svensmark proposes "is insufficient to attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and Earth magnetosphere."

Thank you so much for helping me prove my points.
Click to expand...

This is not the first time I have linked the Svensmark entry. I don't mind including the negative reactions; none has proven persuasive.
 

[h=1]Do-It-Yourself: The solar variability effect on climate.[/h]By Javier So, you still don’t believe small changes in solar activity can significantly affect climate? You know a very cold period during the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, but you have heard that the Little Ice Age could have had other causes, like volcanoes. You have been told repeatedly that since…


. . . And if I tell you that little changes in the Sun have a disproportionate effect on climate you won’t believe me. You shouldn’t believe me. You shouldn’t believe anybody. Science is not about believing. Religion is about believing. So, I propose that you prove to yourself what effect little changes in the Sun have on climate.
You start with solar variability over the Holocene. There are lots of reconstructions, but not all are equally good. You choose Steinhilber et al., 2012 (SAB2012 from now on). It might not be the best, but it is quite good and uses both 14C and 10Be. The isotopes have different pathways. 14C makes it to CO2 and it is breathed in by trees and deposited in their rings. 10Be makes it to the ice in ice cores partially through a dry deposition pathway associated with dust, but mainly through a precipitation-dependent pathway. As the isotopes have different climatic dependencies, the effect of climate on the reconstruction is minimized by using both.
You can get the article here:
9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
And you can get the data here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/steinhilber2012.txt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom