• 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

Visbek said:
Please.

On her site right now is a post by "Javier" which claims that the warming we see now is 100% perfectly normal and in line with previous natural cycles. While the author (whoever the heck Javier is) admits that the rise in CO2 is due to human activity, he denies that this has any actual impact on global temperatures.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/02/26/nature-unbound-viii-modern-global-warming/



Yes, and the reason I pointed you to the CLOUD article, which summarized 10 years of work by that lab, was to point out that it did not find any reason to attribute any of the climate change we've seen to variations in CR.



lol

I've already discussed Shaviv in this thread. You are welcome to chase your own tail. I have no interest in pointing out, yet again, that Shaviv is a shill for denialism.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...crs-clouds-and-climate-13.html#post1067965115
Click to expand...

Curry welcomes many points of view, which is why AGW zealots condemn her. She is unwilling to pretend a certainty she does not believe the evidence justifies.
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, the cooling trend has begun.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is a complete and utter myth made-up by climate denial proponents.

compare_datasets_crutem4_logo.png
 
MovingPictures said:
Actually, that is a complete and utter myth made-up by climate denial proponents.

compare_datasets_crutem4_logo.png
Click to expand...

2017 was cooler than 2016, and 2018 will be cooler still. It is already cooler than 1998. Thus, no warming 1998-2018. No end to the cooling yet in sight.
 
Jack Hays said:
Hmmm. What does the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) know that you don't? Normally I'd assume you know this, but I've learned not to take anything for granted. IAS was where Einstein worked after emigrating to the US. I think you're afraid.
Click to expand...
Who cares?

Maybe you should consider the fact that NASA, NOAA, the American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, Royal Society, and dozens of other scientific unions and institutions appear to know something you don't know.
 
MovingPictures said:
Who cares?

Maybe you should consider the fact that NASA, NOAA, the American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, Royal Society, and dozens of other scientific unions and institutions appear to know something you don't know.
Click to expand...

"If they were right, one would have been enough." --Albert Einstein
 
Jack Hays said:
2017 was cooler than 2016, and 2018 will be cooler still. It is already cooler than 1998. Thus, no warming 1998-2018. No end to the cooling yet in sight.
Click to expand...
You're either a dishonest hack, or you don't know what you're talking about.

1998 was a particularly aggressive El Nino cycle, as was 2016, so it naturally follows that if you cherry pick those years, one will get the desired trend decline. However, the overall trend is still warming, whether you accept it or not.

figure-1.png
 
Jack Hays said:
"If they were right, one would have been enough." --Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
And, yet, Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and physical cosmology, so what's your point?
 
MovingPictures said:
You're either a dishonest hack, or you don't know what you're talking about.

1998 was a particularly aggressive El Nino cycle, as was 2016, so it naturally follows that if you cherry pick those years, one will get the desired trend decline. However, the overall trend is still warming, whether you accept it or not.

figure-1.png
Click to expand...

Not since 2016. As the Sun goes into Minimum and GCR's consequently strike Earth's atmosphere with greater frequency, more cooling is in prospect.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not since 2016. As the Sun goes into Minimum and GCR's consequently strike Earth's atmosphere with greater frequency, more cooling is in prospect.
Click to expand...
Wow, 2016? That's a whole fourteen months ago. :lol:
 
Jack Hays said:
Hmmm. What does the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) know that you don't?
Click to expand...
:roll:

When in doubt, appeal to authority.

IAS doesn't do climate research. At all. That's pretty obvious from its "Ideas" page on climate change:
https://www.ias.edu/idea-tags/climate-change

Shaviv was at IAS for about 1 year as part of an IBM fellowship for foreign researchers. Given his CV, chances are it was due to his research in astrophysics, not climate change denialism.

So, are you actually suggesting that because he got that fellowship, every paper he writes and every claim he makes about climate change is correct?


I think you're afraid.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm so terrified that I already pointed out criticisms of his work in this thread.
 
Jack Hays said:
Every trend has a beginning, and this one coincides with the Sun's approach to Minimum.
Click to expand...
The trend is up.

And yet again, Svensmark proclaimed in 2009 that we were headed for a cooling phase. We've had 4 of the 10 hottest years on record since then, including:

#1 = 2012
#2 = 2016
#3 = 2017
#4 = 2015

All of which were hotter than 1998, by the way.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

When in doubt, appeal to authority.

IAS doesn't do climate research. At all. That's pretty obvious from its "Ideas" page on climate change:
https://www.ias.edu/idea-tags/climate-change

Shaviv was at IAS for about 1 year as part of an IBM fellowship for foreign researchers. Given his CV, chances are it was due to his research in astrophysics, not climate change denialism.

So, are you actually suggesting that because he got that fellowship, every paper he writes and every claim he makes about climate change is correct?



Yes, I'm so terrified that I already pointed out criticisms of his work in this thread.
Click to expand...

Actually, his work at IAS was on climate.

How Might Climate be Influenced by Cosmic Rays? | Institute for Advanced Study
Institute for Advanced Study › ideas › sh...

Nir Shaviv. Our galactic journey imprinted in the climate—when Earth's temperature (red dots warm, blue dots .... matter was also advocated by John Bahcall, who for many years was a Faculty member here at the IAS.
 
Visbek said:
Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/
Click to expand...
CO2 doesn't cause climate change either.

It isn't claimed to cause climate change. Just have a significant effect. It is bad science to leave out any significant variable.

Visbek said:
Cosmic radiation causes fluctuations in global temperatures, but doesn't cause climate change
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html
Click to expand...
Again, neither does CO2.

Visbek said:
Climate myths: It’s all down to cosmic rays
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11651-climate-myths-its-all-down-to-cosmic-rays/
Click to expand...
LOL...

They have the whole concept wrong, and ignoring what really happens. It has to do with the variability of the magnetic field shielding the earth from high energy particles, as the level of cosmic rays are modulated my the magnetic field. They are being to simplistic about it.

Visbek said:
Comprehensive study shows cosmic rays are not causing global warming
https://physicsworld.com/a/comprehensive-study-shows-cosmic-rays-are-not-causing-global-warming/
Click to expand...
We don't know with any certainty the quantification of the several major variables. Of course cosmic rays don't cause global warming. They are just one of several variables that modulate the heat coming from the sun.

Visbek said:
Cosmic ray theory of global warming gets cold response
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response
Click to expand...
Who cares what that rag says?

Visbek said:
Wow. Yeah, I'm sure that Svensmark's latest paper will revolutionize earth sciences! It's not like his theories repeatedly failed to hold up to scientific examination....
Click to expand...
He already has, in that others have studied his work and are continuing to try to understand it better.
 
longview said:
it would be easy to believe the effects from cloud formation, are greater than effects from CO2.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

We know that aerosols in the air can trigger cloud formations, and we know that ionizing aerosols can change them, and likely their function. There is nothing far fetched about the idea to explore it in depth.
 
Visbek said:
The trend is up.

And yet again, Svensmark proclaimed in 2009 that we were headed for a cooling phase. We've had 4 of the 10 hottest years on record since then, including:

#1 = 2012
#2 = 2016
#3 = 2017
#4 = 2015

All of which were hotter than 1998, by the way.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting your information, but 2012 isn't even in the top ten.

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.​
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
Yet again... lol

Both of the links you provided are discussing the CLOUD project at CERN.

I already provided a link to the most comprehensive overview of CLOUD's projects, which found that... drum roll please... so far, the evidence indicates that the effects of CR on climate change are negligible. Here it is again:
Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements | Science

To be a little more precise: Perhaps as much as 1/3 of aerosolization may be a result of the CRs constantly bombarding the planet. However, the variations in CR levels do not explain the changes in the climate we've observed over the past 100+ years.

But hey, if Judith Curry linked to it, it must be critical of AGW, right? Right? Right....
Click to expand...

So you are saying that those professors at CERN are clueless as to knowing if their idea is of no merrit what so ever?

That other scientists who's jobs depend upon the fuss about global warming are able to absolutely show that they know that it is a no goer.

This despite you not actually presenting the evidence to show that just other people's word.
 
Visbek said:
IPCC was saying "we don't fully understand the feedback loops that affect the interactions between heat and clouds."

Svensmark is talking about a forcing mechanism, not a type of feedback mechanism.

Svensmark isn't talking about the interactions between heat and clouds.

CRs (from outside our solar system) are a fraction of the effects of solar irradiation. And solar irradiation is (in the view of the IPCC) a tiny amount of the variation in global temperatures.

IPCC explicitly ruled out Svensmark's theories as having an effect.

If you are unable to process this, then that is officially not my problem or fault.
Click to expand...
Words have meaning, A writer may choose to tighten or loosen the meaning with the syntax.
The statement, "A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation." does not exclude Svensmark's theories.
We can argue weather the lack of a confined statement was intentional, but not that the statement
leaves open a much broader range of cloud and radiation interaction.
As your statements detail that you do not understand the basics of Svensmark's theories,
I have to wonder why you are arguing so vigorously that it cannot be a factor?
 
Tim the plumber said:
So you are saying that those professors at CERN are clueless as to knowing if their idea is of no merrit what so ever?
Click to expand...
I'm stating that the CLOUD lab at CERN has been operating for years, performing a variety of experiments. A handful of papers from CLOUD studies lend some support to the CR theory; most do not. The study I linked is one of the most extensive surveys of 10 years of data, and its conclusion is that CR variability has a negligible effect on the climate overall.


That other scientists who's jobs depend upon the fuss about global warming are able to absolutely show that they know that it is a no goer.
Click to expand...
Please, spare us the conspiracy theory nonsense. We could just as easily say that the researchers who are funded by fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks (e.g. Shaviv <--> Heartland) are equally compromised.


This despite you not actually presenting the evidence to show that just other people's word.
Click to expand...
The evidence is in the linked article, which apparently you didn't read. Impressive.
 
There seems to be quite a bit of dependency on the roll that clouds play in Earth's energy balance.
The CERES satellite was launched to measure some of these things directly.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
The Global Mean TOA Flux (Wm-2) Ed2.8
March 2000 – June 2015
All sky NET 0.60 Wm-2
Clear Sky NET 21.7 Wm-2
The all sky included clouds, the clear sky, is sort of self explanatory.
It sure looks like the clear sky TOA net FLUX is 36 times greater than the all sky,
I.E. Clouds drop the amount of net FLUX by a large number.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So you are saying that those professors at CERN are clueless as to knowing if their idea is of no merrit what so ever?

That other scientists who's jobs depend upon the fuss about global warming are able to absolutely show that they know that it is a no goer.

This despite you not actually presenting the evidence to show that just other people's word.
Click to expand...

You have to remember Tim...

Any heretic that disbelieves the dogma from the IPCC Assessment Reports is wrong. Period!

The gospel will not be questioned!
 
longview said:
Words have meaning, A writer may choose to tighten or loosen the meaning with the syntax.
The statement, "A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation." does not exclude Svensmark's theories.
We can argue weather the lack of a confined statement was intentional, but not that the statement
leaves open a much broader range of cloud and radiation interaction.
As your statements detail that you do not understand the basics of Svensmark's theories,
I have to wonder why you are arguing so vigorously that it cannot be a factor?
Click to expand...

Most papers are written rather loosely. I gave up on trying to get people to actually read the papers and see the truth. They only believe those who read the same bible.
 
Visbek said:
I'm stating that the CLOUD lab at CERN has been operating for years, performing a variety of experiments. A handful of papers from CLOUD studies lend some support to the CR theory; most do not. The study I linked is one of the most extensive surveys of 10 years of data, and its conclusion is that CR variability has a negligible effect on the climate overall.



Please, spare us the conspiracy theory nonsense. We could just as easily say that the researchers who are funded by fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks (e.g. Shaviv <--> Heartland) are equally compromised.



The evidence is in the linked article, which apparently you didn't read. Impressive.
Click to expand...

I think the important thing is that they show the science is not settled. I think you fail to realize that assumed feedback of CO2 forcing is also not proven.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Most papers are written rather loosely. I gave up on trying to get people to actually read the papers and see the truth. They only believe those who read the same bible.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that if you actually hear what the scientists about their research in their own words, it’s pretty clear that their position is...opposite of yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom