• 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

Svensmark's theory has long been disproved. It is a dead theory. There is no correlation between global temperature and GCRs.

GCR_Temps_Polyfit_med.jpg


"Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits."
 
Surface Detail said:
Svensmark's theory has long been disproved. It is a dead theory. There is no correlation between global temperature and GCRs.

GCR_Temps_Polyfit_med.jpg


"Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits."
Click to expand...

Apparently the Institute for Advanced Study didn't get your message.

[h=3]How Might Climate be Influenced by Cosmic Rays? | Institute for ...[/h]https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/shaviv-milky-way



These cosmic rays primarily consist of protons and heavier nuclei with energies between their rest mass and a trillion times ... By Nir Shaviv · Published 2015.
 
Surface Detail said:
Svensmark's theory has long been disproved. It is a dead theory. There is no correlation between global temperature and GCRs.

GCR_Temps_Polyfit_med.jpg


"Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits."
Click to expand...

Yes, but Jack has posted articles about completely unrelated physics topics from Svensmark’s son, so I think it’s quite clear this is more of a case of hero worship and wishful thinking than any type of reality based reasoning.
 
Surface Detail said:
Svensmark's theory has long been disproved. It is a dead theory. There is no correlation between global temperature and GCRs.

GCR_Temps_Polyfit_med.jpg


"Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits."
Click to expand...
I ma not sure much of anything from skeptical science counts as science,
but if you had bothered to understand anything about Svensmark's theory, you would know that it is NOT about
the amount of cosmic rays coming from the universe, but rather that changes in solar activity regulate the amount of
the background cosmic rays that are allowed to enter the atmosphere.
I.E. the skeptical science graph only proves that they do not understand Svensmark's theory ether!
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, but Jack has posted articles about completely unrelated physics topics from Svensmark’s son, so I think it’s quite clear this is more of a case of hero worship and wishful thinking than any type of reality based reasoning.
Click to expand...

The article in question was not unrelated and was not by Svensmark's son, but other than that you're on target.:roll:
 
longview said:
I ma not sure much of anything from skeptical science counts as science,
but if you had bothered to understand anything about Svensmark's theory, you would know that it is NOT about
the amount of cosmic rays coming from the universe, but rather that changes in solar activity regulate the amount of
the background cosmic rays that are allowed to enter the atmosphere.
I.E. the skeptical science graph only proves that they do not understand Svensmark's theory ether!
Click to expand...

The graph shows the number of cosmic rays detected at the ground by the Real-time Neutron Monitor Database. According to Svensmark, the global temperature should fall as the number of GCRs increases. The number of GCRs has indeed been increasing, perhaps as a consequence of reduced solar activity. But the temperature shows no correlation with the number of GCRs recorded, which rather scuppers Svensmark's hypothesis that solar-modulated GCRs are primarily responsible for changes in global temperature.
 
Jack Hays said:
Apparently the Institute for Advanced Study didn't get your message.

[h=3]How Might Climate be Influenced by Cosmic Rays? | Institute for ...[/h]https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/shaviv-milky-way



These cosmic rays primarily consist of protons and heavier nuclei with energies between their rest mass and a trillion times ... By Nir Shaviv · Published 2015.
Click to expand...

It's not what I say; it's what the data says. There is simply no correlation between GCRs and global temperature. If GCRs do influence global temperature, then the effect must be very small and is eclipsed by other factors.
 
Surface Detail said:
The graph shows the number of cosmic rays detected at the ground by the Real-time Neutron Monitor Database. According to Svensmark, the global temperature should fall as the number of GCRs increases. The number of GCRs has indeed been increasing, perhaps as a consequence of reduced solar activity. But the temperature shows no correlation with the number of GCRs recorded, which rather scuppers Svensmark's hypothesis that solar-modulated GCRs are primarily responsible for changes in global temperature.
Click to expand...

Negligible warming since 1998. Cooling since 2016.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's not what I say; it's what the data says. There is simply no correlation between GCRs and global temperature. If GCRs do influence global temperature, then the effect must be very small and is eclipsed by other factors.
Click to expand...

Negligible warming since 1998. Cooling since 2016.
 
Surface Detail said:
The graph shows the number of cosmic rays detected at the ground by the Real-time Neutron Monitor Database. According to Svensmark, the global temperature should fall as the number of GCRs increases. The number of GCRs has indeed been increasing, perhaps as a consequence of reduced solar activity. But the temperature shows no correlation with the number of GCRs recorded, which rather scuppers Svensmark's hypothesis that solar-modulated GCRs are primarily responsible for changes in global temperature.
Click to expand...
Think about your own words, "According to Svensmark, the global temperature should fall as the number of GCRs increases."
in relationship to the graph that shows as you say ground based GCR decreasing since 1957.
If, as you say, 'According to Svensmark, the global temperature should fall as the number of GCRs increases.",
then what will happen if GCRs decrease?
 
longview said:
Think about your own words, "According to Svensmark, the global temperature should fall as the number of GCRs increases."
in relationship to the graph that shows as you say ground based GCR decreasing since 1957.
If, as you say, 'According to Svensmark, the global temperature should fall as the number of GCRs increases.",
then what will happen if GCRs decrease?
Click to expand...

The graph shows GCRs increasing, not decreasing. Look at the scale on the right - it is inverted. This was explicitly pointed out when I posted the graph earlier.
 
Surface Detail said:
The graph shows GCRs increasing, not decreasing. Look at the scale on the right - it is inverted. This was explicitly pointed out when I posted the graph earlier.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I see that now. it still may not show much about the amount of GCrs entering the atmosphere.
I do not know what happens to the rays after they form clouds, do the rays get deflected, reduce energy, transition
to a difference level of energy, ect.
I am not a strict follower of the concept, but I do not think we have enough data to eliminate
it as a contributor to our observed changes.
 
longview said:
Fair enough, I see that now. it still may not show much about the amount of GCrs entering the atmosphere.
I do not know what happens to the rays after they form clouds, do the rays get deflected, reduce energy, transition
to a difference level of energy, ect.
I am not a strict follower of the concept, but I do not think we have enough data to eliminate
it as a contributor to our observed changes.
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible that cloud formation by GCRs could be making a small contribution to observed temperature changes, but the lack of correlation strongly indicates that that contribution, if it exists, is very minor compared with other influences.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's certainly possible that cloud formation by GCRs could be making a small contribution to observed temperature changes, but the lack of correlation strongly indicates that that contribution, if it exists, is very minor compared with other influences.
Click to expand...
Maybe, we also do not know if measuring GCRs at the ground is a good indication of the quantity that
are allowed to enter the atmosphere.
 
longview said:
Maybe, we also do not know if measuring GCRs at the ground is a good indication of the quantity that
are allowed to enter the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

It would seem reasonable to presume that the number of GCRs reaching the ground is proportional to the number entering the atmosphere. Do you know of any reason why this should not be the case?
 
Surface Detail said:
It would seem reasonable to presume that the number of GCRs reaching the ground is proportional to the number entering the atmosphere. Do you know of any reason why this should not be the case?
Click to expand...
The bases of the theory is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth’s atmosphere.
Most particle photon interaction involve exchanging energy, so what may have begun as a gamma ray,
may be a lessor energy photon after the interaction, and so may not show up in a count of cosmic rays.
 
longview said:
The bases of the theory is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth’s atmosphere.
Most particle photon interaction involve exchanging energy, so what may have begun as a gamma ray,
may be a lessor energy photon after the interaction, and so may not show up in a count of cosmic rays.
Click to expand...

That's not a valid argument. If GCRs increase, than more would lose energy in atmospheric interactions, but more would also reach the ground. The number reaching the ground would still be proportional to the number entering the atmosphere.
 
Surface Detail said:
That's not a valid argument. If GCRs increase, than more would lose energy in atmospheric interactions, but more would also reach the ground. The number reaching the ground would still be proportional to the number entering the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
It really depends on what they count as a cosmic ray!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom