• 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

Jack Hays said:
Visbek's graph was misleadingly incomplete, left out many El Ninos and did not adequately deduct the El Nino warming.
Click to expand...

Amazing you can ‘know’ that when you admitted earlier you have neither the skill or talents to be able to evaluate that.
 
PDF]Tomicic et al., 2018 - Atmos. Chem. Phys

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5921/2018/acp-18-5921-2018.pdf


by M Tomicic - ‎2018 - ‎Related articles
Apr 27, 2018 - https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5921-2018 ... expand the parameterization presented in Dunne et al. .... of the schematic from Svensmark et al.

Abstract. One hundred and ten direct measurements of aerosol nucleation rate at high ionization levels were performed in an 8 m3reaction chamber. Neutral and ion-induced particle formation from sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was studied as a function of ionization and H2SO4 concentration. Other species that could have participated in the nucleation, such as NH3 or organic compounds, were not measured but assumed constant, and the concentration was estimated based on the parameterization by Gordon et al. (2017). Our parameter space is thus [H2SO4] = 4×106 −3×107cm−3, [NH3+org] = 2.2 ppb, T = 295 K, RH = 38 %, and ion concentrations of 1700–19 000 cm−3. The ion concentrations, which correspond to levels caused by a nearby supernova, were achieved with gamma ray sources. Nucleation rates were directly measured with a particle size magnifier (PSM AirmodusA10) at a size close to critical cluster size (mobility diameter of ∼ 1.4 nm) and formation rates at a mobility diameter of ∼ 4 nm were measured with a CPC (TSI model 3775).The measurements show that nucleation increases by around an order of magnitude when the ionization increases from background to supernova levels under fixed gas conditions.The results expand the parameterization presented in Dunne et al. (2016) and Gordon et al. (2017) (for [NH3 + org] =2.2 ppb and T = 295 K) to lower sulfuric acid concentrations and higher ion concentrations. The results make it possible to expand the parameterization presented in Dunne et al. (2016)and Gordon et al. (2017) to higher ionization levels.
 
Jack Hays said:
PDF]Tomicic et al., 2018 - Atmos. Chem. Phys

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5921/2018/acp-18-5921-2018.pdf


by M Tomicic - ‎2018 - ‎Related articles
Apr 27, 2018 - https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5921-2018 ... expand the parameterization presented in Dunne et al. .... of the schematic from Svensmark et al.

Abstract. One hundred and ten direct measurements of aerosol nucleation rate at high ionization levels were performed in an 8 m3reaction chamber. Neutral and ion-induced particle formation from sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was studied as a function of ionization and H2SO4 concentration. Other species that could have participated in the nucleation, such as NH3 or organic compounds, were not measured but assumed constant, and the concentration was estimated based on the parameterization by Gordon et al. (2017). Our parameter space is thus [H2SO4] = 4×106 −3×107cm−3, [NH3+org] = 2.2 ppb, T = 295 K, RH = 38 %, and ion concentrations of 1700–19 000 cm−3. The ion concentrations, which correspond to levels caused by a nearby supernova, were achieved with gamma ray sources. Nucleation rates were directly measured with a particle size magnifier (PSM AirmodusA10) at a size close to critical cluster size (mobility diameter of ∼ 1.4 nm) and formation rates at a mobility diameter of ∼ 4 nm were measured with a CPC (TSI model 3775).The measurements show that nucleation increases by around an order of magnitude when the ionization increases from background to supernova levels under fixed gas conditions.The results expand the parameterization presented in Dunne et al. (2016) and Gordon et al. (2017) (for [NH3 + org] =2.2 ppb and T = 295 K) to lower sulfuric acid concentrations and higher ion concentrations. The results make it possible to expand the parameterization presented in Dunne et al. (2016)and Gordon et al. (2017) to higher ionization levels.
Click to expand...

Not terribly relevant to today's conditions, is it? Unless there has recently been a nearby supernova that nobody has told us about :lol:
 
Apparently, we now get spammed with any scientific article that mentions cosmic rays from now on, because ‘it’s central to Svensmark’s hypothesis’.


:roll:
 
Threegoofs said:
Apparently, we now get spammed with any scientific article that mentions cosmic rays from now on, because ‘it’s central to Svensmark’s hypothesis’.


:roll:
Click to expand...

Quite an uninformed post.

Authors: Maja Tomicic, Martin Bødker Enghoff, and Henrik Svensmark
National Space Institute, Danish Technical University, Elektrovej 327, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]June Solar Update[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by David Archibald We have only 300 years-odd of detailed solar observations with telescopes, half that of magnetic records, half again in the radio spectrum and less than that for most modern instrument records (and 12 years of Watts Up With That to interpret it). So as the months pass our knowledge of…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
The cosmoclimatology theory | Science Matters

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/the-cosmoclimatology-theory/


Feb 2, 2018 - Propounded by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and his associates, the ... (See Kirby et al, Nature, (2011), 476, 429-433: Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays ... Chart adapted from SIDC is dated 1 January 2018.

[FONT=&quot]". . . The latest research by Svensmark and his associates (reported in H Svensmark et al. “Increased ionisation supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei” Nature Communications 2017;8(1) shows“ both theoretically and empirically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei” (David Whitehouse: “Cosmic Rays Climate Link Found”). This implies, Prof Svensmark argues, that the effect of the sun on climate could be “5-7 times stronger than that estimated due to changes in the radiant output of the sun alone.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It also explains why over geological time, there have been much larger variations in climate correlated with changes in cosmic rays. He adds that “it also negates the idea that carbon dioxide has been controlling the climate on the se timescales. ”Thus, the Medieval Warm period around 1000 AD and the subsequent Little Ice Age between 1300AD and 1900AD fit with changes in solar activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It also explains climate change observed over the 20th century. Similarly, coolings and warmings around 2 degrees Celsius have occurred repeatedly over the last 10,000 years with variations in the Sun’s activity and cosmic ray influx. While over longer time periods there are much larger variations of up to 10 degrees Celsius as “the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars”. Svensmark concludes that ‘finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by solar activity or by supernova activity can change climate”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surely with this confirmation of the cosmo-climatology theory a Nobel Prize in physics for Svensmark and his associates cannot be far off, and with that the end of the hubristic theory of anthropogenic CO2 generated climate change."[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
The cosmoclimatology theory | Science Matters

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/the-cosmoclimatology-theory/


Feb 2, 2018 - Propounded by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and his associates, the ... (See Kirby et al, Nature, (2011), 476, 429-433: Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays ... Chart adapted from SIDC is dated 1 January 2018.

[FONT=&quot]". . . The latest research by Svensmark and his associates (reported in H Svensmark et al. “Increased ionisation supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei” Nature Communications 2017;8(1) shows“ both theoretically and empirically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei” (David Whitehouse: “Cosmic Rays Climate Link Found”). This implies, Prof Svensmark argues, that the effect of the sun on climate could be “5-7 times stronger than that estimated due to changes in the radiant output of the sun alone.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It also explains why over geological time, there have been much larger variations in climate correlated with changes in cosmic rays. He adds that “it also negates the idea that carbon dioxide has been controlling the climate on the se timescales. ”Thus, the Medieval Warm period around 1000 AD and the subsequent Little Ice Age between 1300AD and 1900AD fit with changes in solar activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It also explains climate change observed over the 20th century. Similarly, coolings and warmings around 2 degrees Celsius have occurred repeatedly over the last 10,000 years with variations in the Sun’s activity and cosmic ray influx. While over longer time periods there are much larger variations of up to 10 degrees Celsius as “the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars”. Svensmark concludes that ‘finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by solar activity or by supernova activity can change climate”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surely with this confirmation of the cosmo-climatology theory a Nobel Prize in physics for Svensmark and his associates cannot be far off, and with that the end of the hubristic theory of anthropogenic CO2 generated climate change."[/FONT]
Click to expand...

LOL..

“A Nobel Prize cant be far off...”. !!!

Seems like the work of a Nobelist might actually get cited one day as a reference. Maybe soon.

Edit: Oh, I see his 2017 paper HAS been cited in another research paper! Oh Happy Day! It’s only been cited once, however... seems not to be the work of Nobel quality.


It was cited in a 2018 paper authored by..... Svensmark.

LOL.


(PDF) Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei

I’m sure Polgara will be impressed though.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
LOL..

“A Nobel Prize cant be far off...”. !!!

Seems like the work of a Nobelist might actually get cited one day as a reference. Maybe soon.

Edit: Oh, I see his 2017 paper HAS been cited in another research paper! Oh Happy Day! It’s only been cited once, however... seems not to be the work of Nobel quality.


It was cited in a 2018 paper authored by..... Svensmark.

LOL.


(PDF) Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei

I’m sure Polgara will be impressed though.
Click to expand...

All in good time.

[FONT=&quot][h=2]Online attention[/h][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[h=3]Altmetric score (what's this?)[/h]
  • Tweeted by 316
  • Blogged by 10
  • On 5 Facebook pages
  • Mentioned in 10 Google+ posts
  • Picked up by 36 news outlets

  • 15 readers on Mendeley

[h=2]This Altmetric score means that the article is:[/h]
  • in the 99th percentile (ranked 793rd) of the 296,601 tracked articles of a similar age in all journals
  • in the 98th percentile (ranked 18th) of the 1,448 tracked articles of a similar age in Nature Communications

[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
All in good time.

[FONT=&quot][h=2]Online attention[/h][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[h=3]Altmetric score (what's this?)[/h]
  • Tweeted by 316
  • Blogged by 10
  • On 5 Facebook pages
  • Mentioned in 10 Google+ posts
  • Picked up by 36 news outlets

  • 15 readers on Mendeley

[h=2]This Altmetric score means that the article is:[/h]
  • in the 99th percentile (ranked 793rd) of the 296,601 tracked articles of a similar age in all journals
  • in the 98th percentile (ranked 18th) of the 1,448 tracked articles of a similar age in Nature Communications

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Deniers tweeting about it and you posting it all over tarnation doesnt say much, or else Kim Kardashian would be up for a Nobel Prize.


It’s not been cited in the scientific literature once by anyone not named Svensmark. Hilarious.
 
Threegoofs said:
Deniers tweeting about it and you posting it all over tarnation doesnt say much, or else Kim Kardashian would be up for a Nobel Prize.


It’s not been cited in the scientific literature once by anyone not named Svensmark. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Cosmoclimatology from 2007 remains in the Oxford University Press top 25. The 2017 paper will get there too.
 
References Svensmark 1998 and 2012.

[h=3]Long-term association between the intensity of cosmic rays and ...[/h]iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa27a
by CLZ Vieira - ‎2018 - ‎Related articles
Published 1 February 2018 • © 2018 IOP Publishing Ltd ... of the Earth's climate and biodiversity crises over the past million years (Svensmark 2012). ... from supernovae remnants in the Solar System neighborhood (Usoskin et al 2009).
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges - Oxford Journals[/h]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765



by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 296 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - By 2005 we had found a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds (Svensmark et al. 2007). The data ...
Click to expand...

Look, nobody disputes that cosmic rays could and possibly do influence cloud production. After all, we've been using cloud chambers to detect fundamental particles for many decades. The point is that this effect has clearly had far less effect on recent climate than the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Despite the falling activity of the sun (and hence, according to Svensmark, increased number of GCRs) over the past 40 years or so, the temperature of the Earth has continued to rise. This simple fact demonstrates that GCR's are not a primary determinant of the Earth's temperature.
 
Surface Detail said:
Look, nobody disputes that cosmic rays could and possibly do influence cloud production. After all, we've been using cloud chambers to detect fundamental particles for many decades. The point is that this effect has clearly had far less effect on recent climate than the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Despite the falling activity of the sun (and hence, according to Svensmark, increased number of GCRs) over the past 40 years or so, the temperature of the Earth has continued to rise. This simple fact demonstrates that GCR's are not a primary determinant of the Earth's temperature.
Click to expand...

He knows.

He also doesn't care.
 
Surface Detail said:
Look, nobody disputes that cosmic rays could and possibly do influence cloud production. After all, we've been using cloud chambers to detect fundamental particles for many decades. The point is that this effect has clearly had far less effect on recent climate than the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Despite the falling activity of the sun (and hence, according to Svensmark, increased number of GCRs) over the past 40 years or so, the temperature of the Earth has continued to rise. This simple fact demonstrates that GCR's are not a primary determinant of the Earth's temperature.
Click to expand...

late said:
He knows.

He also doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Please note increasing TSI until the recent turn toward minimum.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) -F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Plot:

Leif Svalgaard – click the pic to view at source​
 
Jack Hays said:
Please note increasing TSI until the recent turn toward minimum.

[FONT=&]Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) -F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Plot:[/FONT]
[FONT=&][/FONT]
Leif Svalgaard – click the pic to view at source​
Click to expand...

You are aware that solar activity rises and falls in 11 year cycles, aren't you? And that this graph simply shows the rising half of the most recent cycle?
 
Surface Detail said:
You are aware that solar activity rises and falls in 11 year cycles, aren't you? And that this graph simply shows the rising half of the most recent cycle?
Click to expand...

You're the one who made a big deal of "the falling activity of the sun."
 
Surface Detail said:
You are aware that solar activity rises and falls in 11 year cycles, aren't you? And that this graph simply shows the rising half of the most recent cycle?
Click to expand...

20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING - "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN" - PART III

... is that of liquid water. However, if the water vapor has nothing to condense upon, it will not do so. In fact, under very clean ... is reduced. Less ions reduce the efficiency with which new cloud condensation nuclei can grow, especially over the oceans, such that ...

In the 1990's, Henrik Svensmark and his colleagues found empirically that clouds, and in particular low altitude clouds, appear to vary in sync with the solar activity (see fig. 6). The change in the energy budget associated with this change in the cloud cover is consistent with the amount of heat we find enters the oceans every solar cycle.


HideFigure 6
fig6.jpg
Figure 6: 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 (JGR, 108 (D6), 6, 2003).

[FONT=&quot]. . . The evidence to this particular link comes from experimental results and from correlations between independent cosmic ray flux variations and climate changes on different time scale. Just by itself, a cosmic ray climate correlation over the 11-year solar cycle does not necessarily imply a causal link. One could imagine that the solar activity affects both the cosmic ray flux and the climate, making it appear that there is a causal relation between the latter two. Nevertheless, there are indications that it is not just an apparent link. For example, the dependence of the relative cloud cover variations with the magnetic latitude is the same as the latitudinal dependence of the relative change in the atmospheric ionization, over the solar cycle. Another important fact is that the full solar cycle is not that of 11-years, but 22-years instead. It takes 11-years for the magnetic field to flip, but 22-years for it to return to the original state. However, all the solar activity proxies are “blind” to the polarity of the magnetic field, all except the cosmic ray flux which exhibits a clear asymmetry between odd and even solar cycles. This asymmetry is seen in the change of the low altitude cloud cover, implying that the cloud cover variations originate from cosmic ray flux variations. . . .[/FONT]
 
Nil Sharviv has no peer reviewed scientific work in climatology. IOW, fake science... But he does take Koch money.

Kook or Koch? Prob both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom