• 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

longview said:
You linked to ground measurements of cosmic rays, but that may or may not have anything to do with your graph.
I guess we will never know the source for cosmic rays in your graph!
Click to expand...

So you’re saying that you have evidence that the graph isn’t accurate?

Why are you whining about the source instead of providing evidence showing CR are doing something different?
 
Deuce said:
So you disagree with the following:
Click to expand...

No. I do not disagree. Both can be true.

THE OCEANS AS A CALORIMETER

... decided to write about it. I would have written earlier, but as I wrote before , I have been quite busy. I now have time, sitting in my ... physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth's oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and ...

[FONT=&quot]So what does it mean? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First, it means that the IPCC cannot ignore anymore the fact that the sun has a large climatic effect on climate. Of course, there was plenty of evidence before, so I don't expect this result to make any difference! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Second, given the consistency between the energy going into the oceans and the estimated forcing by the solar cycle synchronized cloud cover variations, it is unlikely that the solar forcing is not associated with the cloud cover variation. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Note that the most reasonable explanation to the cloud variations is that of the cosmic ray cloud link. By now there are many independent lines of evidence showing its existence (e.g., for a not so recent summary take a look [/FONT]here[FONT=&quot]). That is, the cloud cover variations are controlled by an external lever, which itself is affected by solar activity. [/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
So you’re saying that you have evidence that the graph isn’t accurate?

Why are you whining about the source instead of providing evidence showing CR are doing something different?
Click to expand...
The graph is reasonable accurate, but does not show the decade averages.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. I do not disagree. Both can be true.

THE OCEANS AS A CALORIMETER

[FONT=&]... decided to write about it. I would have written earlier, but as I wrote before , I have been quite busy. I now have time, sitting in my ... physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth's oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and ...

[/FONT][FONT="]So what does it mean? [/FONT]

[FONT="]First, it means that the IPCC cannot ignore anymore the fact that the sun has a large climatic effect on climate. Of course, there was plenty of evidence before, so I don't expect this result to make any difference! [/FONT]

[FONT="]Second, given the consistency between the energy going into the oceans and the estimated forcing by the solar cycle synchronized cloud cover variations, it is unlikely that the solar forcing is not associated with the cloud cover variation. [/FONT]

[FONT="]Note that the most reasonable explanation to the cloud variations is that of the cosmic ray cloud link. By now there are many independent lines of evidence showing its existence (e.g., for a not so recent summary take a look [/FONT]here[FONT="]). That is, the cloud cover variations are controlled by an external lever, which itself is affected by solar activity. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

I love the continued claims that the IPCC "ignores the sun." :lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
It's not specifically tagged to clouds. Data suggest a lag between six and eight years for temperatures, but that's an approximation.

You may want to look through this.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/24/solar-cycle-update-for-november-2018-warmth-sticking-around-or-cooling-ahead/"]
clip_image002-3-220x126.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Solar Cycle Update for November 2018 – warmth sticking around, or cooling ahead?[/h][FONT="]Guest essay by David Archibald In reading the solar data, what we are after in the near term is the likely month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 24/25 minimum and likely amplitude of Solar Cycle 25. Of course that quest for truth gets easier as we approach the minimum, at least apparently. Solar Cycle…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yeah the GCR hypothesis IS 'tagged to clouds'. Haven't you actually read any of the papers you post about your pet hypothesis?
 
longview said:
If you insist! The GCR (galactic cosmic rays) theory is about how many of the near constant cosmic rays are allowed to pass into the atmosphere.
The theory holds that some component of solar activity regulates the amount of rays allowed in.
So the actual level of cosmic rays in space have almost nothing to do with the theory,
other than they are there and fairly constant.
Click to expand...

And what does the GCR hypothesis say happens when cosmic rays are 'allowed to pass into the atmosphere'? What are the claims about the mechanism for climate change? You haven't really read up on this have you?
 
Deuce said:
Not specifically tagged to clouds? What is it tagged to, then?
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
Solar output.
Click to expand...

WTF? The whole GCR hypothesis is about possible ionization of cloud condensation nuclei(CNN) when more galactic cosmic rays enter the atmosphere during times when the sun is quieter.

How do you not know this basic fact about your pet hypothesis that you claim will revolutionize climate science?
 
Quaestio said:
WTF? The whole GCR hypothesis is about possible ionization of cloud condensation nuclei(CNN) when more galactic cosmic rays enter the atmosphere during times when the sun is quieter.

How do you not know this basic fact about your pet hypothesis that you claim will revolutionize climate science?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's about clouds and some undefined thing that affects climate through an undefined mechanism that is undetectable.
 
Deuce said:
Apparently it's about clouds and some undefined thing that affects climate through an undefined mechanism that is undetectable.
Click to expand...

It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma!

But it isn’t about CO2, so it’s gonna get a Nobel. Maybe two.
 
Quaestio said:
WTF? The whole GCR hypothesis is about possible ionization of cloud condensation nuclei(CNN) when more galactic cosmic rays enter the atmosphere during times when the sun is quieter.

How do you not know this basic fact about your pet hypothesis that you claim will revolutionize climate science?
Click to expand...

woops, I meant to type CCN not CNN
 
Quaestio said:
And what does the GCR hypothesis say happens when cosmic rays are 'allowed to pass into the atmosphere'? What are the claims about the mechanism for climate change? You haven't really read up on this have you?
Click to expand...
The general idea is the high energy particles encourage cloud formation.
It is basically an amplifier, from what I understand.
More of whatever solar component is causing the ionosphere to reject cosmic rays,
fewer clouds, more sunlight into the system, and the inverse.
I have not seen where they have actually settled on what component of solar activity causes the effect.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's because they try to minimize solar influence.
Click to expand...

No, they calculate solar influence over a specific time period to be less than your gut says it should be. Of course, your propaganda masters always pretend this means "IPCC claims sun doesn't affect climate!"
 
Quaestio said:
WTF? The whole GCR hypothesis is about possible ionization of cloud condensation nuclei(CNN) when more galactic cosmic rays enter the atmosphere during times when the sun is quieter.

How do you not know this basic fact about your pet hypothesis that you claim will revolutionize climate science?
Click to expand...

Archibald's work is not necessarily associated with the GCR hypothesis. It may be only complementary.
 
Deuce said:
No, they calculate solar influence over a specific time period to be less than your gut says it should be. Of course, your propaganda masters always pretend this means "IPCC claims sun doesn't affect climate!"
Click to expand...
They minimize.
 
Deuce said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Please review the link in #1627. Then there is this.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic


So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please review the link in #1627. Then there is this.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic


So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you've discovered the existence of feedbacks and realize they're quite powerful.
 
Deuce said:
Congratulations, you've discovered the existence of feedbacks and realize they're quite powerful.
Click to expand...

Yes. The feedback is the Svensmark hypothesis. Here is the next paragraph from the link above.

The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white.
 
Deuce said:
Congratulations, you've discovered the existence of feedbacks and realize they're quite powerful.
Click to expand...

Point of order...

What is the mechanism of feedback from the sun, to the ocean feedback?

I suggest that it is pretty small. Approximately linear to the solar changes. The larger changes are no feedback, but direct absorption of the shortwave energy absorbed more than a million times deeper into the seas than any greenhouse gas IR is.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. The feedback is the Svensmark hypothesis. Here is the next paragraph from the link above.

The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white.
Click to expand...

Oh look we're back to the cloud thing again.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Point of order...

What is the mechanism of feedback from the sun, to the ocean feedback?

I suggest that it is pretty small. Approximately linear to the solar changes. The larger changes are no feedback, but direct absorption of the shortwave energy absorbed more than a million times deeper into the seas than any greenhouse gas IR is.
Click to expand...

Jack says it's quite large. You should ask him about it.
 
Deuce said:
Jack says it's quite large. You should ask him about it.
Click to expand...

The normal feedback of the TSI over land is little different than the feedback greenhouse gasses get. But keep in mind, that the greenhouse effect, is similar to a feedback of the sun to begin with.

The reason the sun gets under rated is that so much of its spectra is completely absorbed by the seas, which are close to 70% of the surface. And it is this shortwave spectra where most the changes are when the TSI changes. IR from greenhouse gasses are absorbed in the first few microns of the surface, so they have very little thermal inertia. Since some solar spectra will not be completely absorbed until it is several hundred meters deep, the thermal inertia of the oceans are far greater by solar changes, and completely absorbed in the shortwave region instead of acting like a black body.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom