• 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

Kitaba et al., 2017
[h=6]“The weakening of the geomagnetic field causes an increase in galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux. Some researchers argue that enhanced GCR flux might lead to a climatic cooling by increasing low cloud formation, which enhances albedo (umbrella effect). Recent studies have reported geological evidence for a link between weakened geomagnetic field and climatic cooling. … Greater terrestrial cooling indicates that a reduction of insolation [solar radiation reaching the surface] is playing a key role in the link between the weakening of the geomagnetic field and climatic cooling. The most likely candidate for the mechanism seems to be the increased albedo of the umbrella effect.”[/h]
 
Frigo et al., 2018
[h=6]“In this work, we investigate the relationship between the ∼ 11-year and ∼22-year cycles that are related to solar activity and GCRs [galactic cosmic rays] and the annual average temperature recorded between 1936 and 2014 at two weather stations, both located near a latitude of 26◦ S but at different longitudes. … Sunspot data and the solar modulation potential for cosmic rays were used as proxies for the solar activity and the GCRs, respectively. Our investigation of the influence of decadal and bidecadal cycles in temperature data was carried out using the wavelet transform coherence (WTC) spectrum. The results indicate that periodicities of 11 years may have continuously modulated the climate at TOR [Torres, Brazil] via a nonlinear mechanism… The obtained results offer indirect mathematical evidence that solar activity and GCR variations contributed to climatic changes in southern Brazil during the last century. The contribution of other mechanisms also related to solar activity cannot be excluded.”[/h]
 
Biktash, 2017
[h=6]“The effects of total solar irradiance (TSI) and volcanic activity on long-term global temperature variations during solar cycles 19–23 [1954-2008] were studied. It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters. … Recent studies by Pudovkin and Raspopov, Tinsley, and Swensmark have shown that the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity. Conditions in interplanetary space, which can influence GCRs and climate change, have been studied in numerous works. As has been demonstrated by Biktash, the long-term CR count rate and global temperature variations in 20–23 solar cycles are modulated by solar activity and by the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field). A possible geophysical factor which is able to affect the influence of solar activity on the Earth’s climate is volcanism. The effects of volcanism can lead to serious consequences in the atmosphere and the climate.”[/h]
 
Jack just LOVES his 'slow reveals'. Now he's mindlessly copying and pasting one paper at a time from a list on the junk-science conspiracy blog NoTrickZone.
 
Suddenly, when the peer-reviewed research supports an alternative climate hypothesis, the AGW advocates don't like science anymore.
 
Jack Hays said:
Suddenly, when the peer-reviewed research supports an alternative climate hypothesis, the AGW advocates don't like science anymore.
Click to expand...

But the peer-reviewed research doesn't 'support an alternative hypothesis' like the "galactic cosmic rays" hypothesis as having a major effect on climate at all. It's basically been shown that it could potentially have a very little to negligible effect on climate. Not that you would know as you don't even read anything you copy and paste or read any of the papers that contradict your claims.

And you've never 'liked science', you love the pseudoscience nonsense found on blogs like WUWT, otherwise why would you posts thousands and thousands of copied and pasted blog posts from there?
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
But the peer-reviewed research doesn't 'support an alternative hypothesis' like the "galactic cosmic rays" hypothesis as having a major effect on climate at all. It's basically been shown that it could potentially have a very little to negligible effect on climate. Not that you would know as you don't even read anything you copy and paste or read any of the papers that contradict your claims.

And you've never 'liked science', you love the pseudoscience nonsense found on blogs like WUWT, otherwise why would you posts thousands and thousands of copied and pasted blog posts from there?
Click to expand...

The effects of CO2 have never been measured in any manner ti exclude other variables properly. All these little factors add up and detract from the effects of CO2.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The effects of CO2 have never been measured in any manner ti exclude other variables properly. All these little factors add up and detract from the effects of CO2.
Click to expand...

The unfortunate aspect of all this is that the AGW advocates proclaim with such certainty that the research --which they obviously have not read-- does not support the solar/GCR flux hypothesis. In fact, it does.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So? Does Tim Wallace say it doesn't have an effect? Where does Henrik Svensmark state it's the main driver?

My God... Grow up and learn how to fact find.
Click to expand...

It’s a minimal component. In a pristine atmosphere, under experimental conditions. Did you not read it??

But you guys are acting like it’s the cause of all observed warming.

Of course, some of you are arguing that there is NO warming because librul groupthink or that the warming is really just totally normal and getting massive warming spikes that descend back to normal probably happens all the time - we don’t know because of resolution of paleoclimate proxies or that you know the warming is not significant because you added some figures on your legal pad in your office cubicle and besides, climategate showed everything is wrong.
 
Jack Hays said:
Now we are getting to the long-awaited fundamental debate. Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and others have identified the mechanism by which solar interaction with galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influences Earth's climate. Their research strikes at the core of AGW orthodoxy, and will surely provoke a vigorous debate. We may be witnessing a paradigm-shifting moment as described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

<<<snipped to accommodate character count limitation>>>​


[/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
Click to expand...

Let's assume the remote possibility that the pro-CO2 aka AGW is forced to accept this kind of research/thinking/evidence as something they cannot ignore or explain away using other 'data'. (I don't think there is much chance of that as they generally shrug off all scientific opinion that would in any way interfere with their grants and scientific prestige.) But if they did. . .

Will we now be faced with the spectacle of a 'scientific global emergency' requiring research to control the sun?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Let's assume the remote possibility that the pro-CO2 aka AGW is forced to accept this kind of research/thinking/evidence as something they cannot ignore or explain away using other 'data'. (I don't think there is much chance of that as they generally shrug off all scientific opinion that would in any way interfere with their grants and scientific prestige.) But if they did. . .

Will we now be faced with the spectacle of a 'scientific global emergency' requiring research to control the sun?
Click to expand...

Yes. It’s all a giant worldwide conspiracy.

Darn. Can’t get anything past sharp people like you!
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s a minimal component. In a pristine atmosphere, under experimental conditions. Did you not read it??

But you guys are acting like it’s the cause of all observed warming.

Of course, some of you are arguing that there is NO warming because librul groupthink or that the warming is really just totally normal and getting massive warming spikes that descend back to normal probably happens all the time - we don’t know because of resolution of paleoclimate proxies or that you know the warming is not significant because you added some figures on your legal pad in your office cubicle and besides, climategate showed everything is wrong.
Click to expand...

I read papers. I seldom read what the pundits say like you do.

You love your bloggers and pundits...
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. It’s all a giant worldwide conspiracy.

Darn. Can’t get anything past sharp people like you!
Click to expand...

I can however comment to something people post instead of pretending they said something they didn't say.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Let's assume the remote possibility that the pro-CO2 aka AGW is forced to accept this kind of research/thinking/evidence as something they cannot ignore or explain away using other 'data'. (I don't think there is much chance of that as they generally shrug off all scientific opinion that would in any way interfere with their grants and scientific prestige.) But if they did. . .

Will we now be faced with the spectacle of a 'scientific global emergency' requiring research to control the sun?
Click to expand...

Happily, no. But we might have a new reality-based conversation on climate.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I read papers. I seldom read what the pundits say like you do.

You love your bloggers and pundits...
Click to expand...

You clearly don’t understand the papers you read.

In virtually every scientific discipline ever, not actually carrying on a dialogue with the people who do the research means you are inherently not going to understand the implications.

And you clearly have never spoken to a scientist in this arena.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I can however comment to something people post instead of pretending they said something they didn't say.
Click to expand...

No- you clearly alluded to it.

Not my problem if you can’t understand the ultimate conclusions that your accusations imply.
 
Threegoofs said:
You clearly don’t understand the papers you read.

In virtually every scientific discipline ever, not actually carrying on a dialogue with the people who do the research means you are inherently not going to understand the implications.

And you clearly have never spoken to a scientist in this arena.
Click to expand...

Speaking for yourself I see.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Which is not associated with the climate sciences any more than those I associate with.
Click to expand...

Oh.

So you don’t understand biologists OR climate science.

Who do you think are assessing the current and future impacts of climate?
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh.

So you don’t understand biologists OR climate science.

Who do you think are assessing the current and future impacts of climate?
Click to expand...

I understand both. Biology is a field that resides in the climate.

So what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom