• 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

But solar activity had been falling for the past few decades, which, according to Svensmark, should mean more cosmic rays and more low clouds. So this graph would appear to contradict Svensmark's theory, wouldn't it?

Sorry, but no.

 
But solar activity had been falling for the past few decades, which, according to Svensmark, should mean more cosmic rays and more low clouds. So this graph would appear to contradict Svensmark's theory, wouldn't it?

Until the recent turn toward minimum, the sun has been quite active recently.

 
But solar activity had been falling for the past few decades, which, according to Svensmark, should mean more cosmic rays and more low clouds. So this graph would appear to contradict Svensmark's theory, wouldn't it?

There are several variables which affect our cloud cover, and even TSI is not the only type of energy striking our planet from the sun. The sun also shields the earth. As the sun weakens, so the the shielding from external electromagnetic forcing.
 
Until the recent turn toward minimum, the sun has been quite active recently.


Your graphs are not very informative because they have completely different timescales. We know, of course, that the sun's activity varies in 11-year cycles, so this graph simply shows the last cycle. What it doesn't show is that the 2014 maximum was very low compared with previous maxima and that, if you average over cycles, the sun's activity has been falling for the last few decades. So, according to Svensmark, cloud cover should be increasing, not falling, over this timescale.

If you are trying to show some correlation between cloud cover and solar output/activity, then it would be a good idea to plot them on the same graph using the same timescale!
 
Last edited:
Your graphs are not very informative because they have completely different timescales. We know, of course, that the sun's activity varies in 11-year cycles, so this graph simply shows the last cycle. What it doesn't show is that the 2014 maximum was very low compared with previous maxima and that, if you average over cycles, the sun's activity has been falling for the last few decades. So, according to Svensmark, cloud cover should be increasing, not falling, over this timescale.

If you are trying to show some correlation between cloud cover and solar output/activity, then it would be a good idea to plot them on the same graph using the same timescale!

Keep quibbling.
 
It's rather amusing that the failure of reality to match Svensmark's theory is a mere quibble as far as you're concerned. Which do you suppose is wrong? Svensmark, or reality? Or does it simply not matter to you?

Actually, you haven't demonstrated any conflict between Svensmark and reality. You quibbled about time scales. And I note you dodged the graph in #1003 entirely.
 
It's rather amusing that the failure of reality to match Svensmark's theory is a mere quibble as far as you're concerned. Which do you suppose is wrong? Svensmark, or reality? Or does it simply not matter to you?

And of course, this oldie but goodie.



[FONT=&quot]Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
SolarActivityProxies.png
Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
ionChamber.png
Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20thcentury global warming.


[/FONT]
 

According to the graph in your post #1001, cloud cover diminished in the period from 1983 to 2009. But according to this graph, solar output fell over the same period. This contradicts Svenmark's theory, which predicts that cloud cover should increase, not diminish, as solar output falls. So Svensmark's theory must be wrong, musn't it?
 
According to the graph in your post #1001, cloud cover diminished in the period from 1983 to 2009. But according to this graph, solar output fell over the same period. This contradicts Svenmark's theory, which predicts that cloud cover should increase, not diminish, as solar output falls. So Svensmark's theory must be wrong, musn't it?

I'm afraid you are misreading the graph.
 
I'm afraid you are misreading the graph.

I don't think I am. The graph you posted on #1001 clearly shows cloud cover falling from 1983 to 2009, does it not? And the end of the thick blue line in your graph from #1003, corresponding to the 11-year mean TSI from 1983 to 2009, is clearly falling. How does this not contradict Svensmark's theory?
 
I don't think I am. The graph you posted on #1001 clearly shows cloud cover falling from 1983 to 2009, does it not? And the end of the thick blue line in your graph from #1003, corresponding to the 11-year mean TSI from 1983 to 2009, is clearly falling. How does this not contradict Svensmark's theory?

Actually, #1001 shows cloud cover increasing in 2009, while in #1003 TSI takes a small dip in 2009 after a period of rising and holding steady. Thank you for illustrating the strength of Svensmark's thesis.
 
Actually, #1001 shows cloud cover increasing in 2009, while in #1003 TSI takes a small dip in 2009 after a period of rising and holding steady. Thank you for illustrating the strength of Svensmark's thesis.

:lamo Now that is what I call desperation!
 
Merely reading the graph. Your error is clear.

Picking out one tiny section of a graph that agrees with your thesis while ignoring all the sections that don't agree with it is not reading a graph! That's why we use trend lines to determine agreement. Did you learn nothing in science class? :lamo
 
Picking out one tiny section of a graph that agrees with your thesis while ignoring all the sections that don't agree with it is not reading a graph! That's why we use trend lines to determine agreement. Did you learn nothing in science class? :lamo

You're the one who emphasized "the end of the thick blue line" while ignoring what went before the end. Your claim in #1018 is unusually stupid and hypocritical. You should slink away in embarrassment.
 
You're the one who emphasized "the end of the thick blue line" while ignoring what went before the end. Your claim in #1018 is unusually stupid and hypocritical. You should slink away in embarrassment.

Look at the timescales on the graphs, and you will see that the end of the thick blue line in the TSI graph corresponds to the entire length of the cloud cover graph. That is why it only makes sense to use the end of the TSI graph for comparison. Honestly, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you! Do you really not understand how to compare graphs that have different timescales?
 
No. It does not.

I clearly owe you an apology, Jack. As someone with a scientific education who works regularly with numbers, I sometimes forget that those whose talents are oriented more towards the liberal arts may sometimes have difficulty interpreting numerical data and graphs, and I fear I have been expecting too much of you in this regard. In future, I will attempt to keep my explanations to a more basic level that can be understood even by those who may struggle with mathematical and graphical concepts. So let's try again.

If you look closely, you'll see that the numbers that run along the bottom of the first graph begin with Dec-1983 and end with Dec-2011. However, the green curve, representing tropical cloud cover, ends at December 2009. The graph of tropical cloud cover therefore covers a period of 2009 minus 1983 = 26 years.

HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif


Now look at the numbers along the bottom of the second graph. They begin with 1600 and end with 2000. However, we see that the blue 11-year running mean TSI graph starts at about 1610 and runs to about 2010 - a period of 400 years.

c266e2_594352bb57934839977175e2598d889b~mv2.jpg


This means that the second graph covers a period of time that is 400 / 26 = 15.4 times as long as that covered by the first graph. Hence, if we wish to compare the two graphs, we can only use the 1/15.4 of the second graph that corresponds to the same time period as the first graph. I hope you can see now why it is so important to pay attention to the numbers on the graph axes and why, in this case, the last 15th or so of the TSI graph corresponds to the entire cloud cover graph.
 
Your graphs are not very informative because they have completely different timescales. We know, of course, that the sun's activity varies in 11-year cycles, so this graph simply shows the last cycle. What it doesn't show is that the 2014 maximum was very low compared with previous maxima and that, if you average over cycles, the sun's activity has been falling for the last few decades. So, according to Svensmark, cloud cover should be increasing, not falling, over this timescale.

If you are trying to show some correlation between cloud cover and solar output/activity, then it would be a good idea to plot them on the same graph using the same timescale!

What is the stated lag time?
 
It's rather amusing that the failure of reality to match Svensmark's theory is a mere quibble as far as you're concerned. Which do you suppose is wrong? Svensmark, or reality? Or does it simply not matter to you?

Please tell the class.

Does Svensmark claim TSI is what causes the changes, or is it something else that sometimes correlates to TSI?

Do you realize the the sun's spectrum actually changes, as does it's magnetic field and plasma emissions?
 
I clearly owe you an apology, Jack. As someone with a scientific education who works regularly with numbers, I sometimes forget that those whose talents are oriented more towards the liberal arts may sometimes have difficulty interpreting numerical data and graphs, and I fear I have been expecting too much of you in this regard. In future, I will attempt to keep my explanations to a more basic level that can be understood even by those who may struggle with mathematical and graphical concepts. So let's try again.

If you look closely, you'll see that the numbers that run along the bottom of the first graph begin with Dec-1983 and end with Dec-2011. However, the green curve, representing tropical cloud cover, ends at December 2009. The graph of tropical cloud cover therefore covers a period of 2009 minus 1983 = 26 years.

HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif


Now look at the numbers along the bottom of the second graph. They begin with 1600 and end with 2000. However, we see that the blue 11-year running mean TSI graph starts at about 1610 and runs to about 2010 - a period of 400 years.

c266e2_594352bb57934839977175e2598d889b~mv2.jpg


This means that the second graph covers a period of time that is 400 / 26 = 15.4 times as long as that covered by the first graph. Hence, if we wish to compare the two graphs, we can only use the 1/15.4 of the second graph that corresponds to the same time period as the first graph. I hope you can see now why it is so important to pay attention to the numbers on the graph axes and why, in this case, the last 15th or so of the TSI graph corresponds to the entire cloud cover graph.

I am (and was) aware of the difference in time periods. It doesn't matter. The graphs are complementary, not contradictory.
 
Back
Top Bottom