• 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

  1. [SIZE=-0]N. J. Shaviv,
    “Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites and a possible Climatic Connection”    ,
    Physical Review Letters, 89, 051102, 2002[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] [ADS][/SIZE]
 
  1. [SIZE=-0]N. J. Shaviv,
    “The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic-Rays and Ice-Age Epochs on Earth”    ,
    New Astronomy, 8, 39, 2003[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] [ADS][/SIZE]
 
Give it up. It's been shown to be a failed hypothesis:

Benestad, R. E. (2013). Are there persistent physical atmospheric responses to galactic cosmic rays?. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 035049.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035049/meta

"Variations in the annual mean of the galactic cosmic ray flux (GCR) are compared with annual variations in the most common meteorological variables: temperature, mean sea-level barometric pressure, and precipitation statistics. A multiple regression analysis was used to explore the potential for a GCR response on timescales longer than a year and to identify 'fingerprint' patterns in time and space associated with GCR as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The response pattern associated with GCR consisted of a negative temperature anomaly that was limited to parts of eastern Europe, and a weak anomaly in the sea-level pressure (SLP), but coincided with higher pressure over the Norwegian Sea. It had a similarity to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in the northern hemisphere and a wave train in the southern hemisphere. A set of Monte Carlo simulations nevertheless indicated that the weak amplitude of the global mean temperature response associated with GCR could easily be due to chance (p-value = 0.6), and there has been no trend in the GCR. Hence, there is little empirical evidence that links GCR to the recent global warming."
 
Last edited:
Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W. (2013). Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 045022.

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate - IOPscience

“Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.”
 
Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W. (2013). Cosmic rays and climate change over the past 1000 million years. New Astronomy, 25, 45-49.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1384107613000341

The Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity has been postulated by others to vary cyclically with a peak to valley ratio of ∼3:1, as the Solar System moves from the Spiral Arm to the Inter-Arm regions of the Galaxy. These intensities have been correlated with global temperatures and used to support the hypothesis of GCR induced climate change. In this paper we show that the model used to deduce such a large ratio of Arm to Interarm GCR intensity requires unlikely values of some of the GCR parameters, particularly the diffusion length in the interstellar medium, if as seems likely to be the case, the diffusion is homogeneous. Comparison is made with the existing gamma ray astronomy data and this also indicates that the ratio is not large. The variation in the intensity is probably of order 10–20% and should be no more than 30% as the Solar System moves between these two regions, unless the conventional parameters of the GCR are incorrect. In addition we show that the variation of the GCR intensity, as the trajectory of the Solar System oscillates about the Galactic Plane, is too small to account for the extinctions of species as has been postulated unless, again, conventional assumptions about the GCR parameters are not correct.
 
Erlykin, A. D., Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W. (2013). A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 121(3-4), 137-142.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x

The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.
 
Last edited:
Krissansen‐Totton, J., & Davies, R. (2013). Investigation of cosmic ray–cloud connections using MISR. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(19), 5240-5245.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50996

Numerous empirical studies have analyzed International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project data and reached contradictory conclusions regarding the influence of solar‐modulated galactic cosmic rays on cloud fraction and cloud properties. The Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) instrument on the Terra satellite has been in continuous operation for 13 years and thus provides an independent (and previously unutilized) cloud data set to investigate purported solar‐cloud links. Furthermore, unlike many previous solar‐climate studies that report cloud fraction MISR measures albedo, which has clearer climatological relevance. Our long‐term analysis of MISR data finds no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations. Moreover, epoch superposition analysis of Forbush decreases reveals no detectable albedo response to cosmic ray decreases, thereby placing an upper limit on the possible influence of cosmic ray variations on global albedo of 0.0029 per 5% decrease. The implications for recent global warming are discussed.
 
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf (2014)

“the effect on the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei is too weak to have any detectable climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the last century (medium evidence, high agreement). No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified. In the event that such an association existed, a mechanism other than cosmic ray-induced nucleation of new aerosol particles would be needed to explain it. {7.4.6}”
 
Seems there were some major errors in some of Svensmark's work from the 1990's. Perhaps the start of a trend of sloppy work?

From Peter Laut
Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark
Former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...nts/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN.pdf

Flawed Science

"In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen presented observations which apparently lent support to the solar theory. At a conference in Birmingham they showed that some solar related data (this time the intensity of galactic cosmic rays) correlated strongly with some terrestrial data (total cloud cover). The agreement was striking for the years 1984‐90, which was the period for which data were available. However, as every scientist knows, an agreement only extending over a short time span, here seven years, can be misleading. So, to test a possible causal relationship, the authors in their later publications, two articles published in 1997 and 1998 respectively, added some more recent data, which they claimed demonstrated that the close agreement extended beyond the seven years.

However, close inspection of their work revealed two fatal flaws:

1) Most of the added data were totally irrelevant in the context of the article, but created the false impression that the close agreement with the solar curve did extend beyond the original seven years (see my paper for details). Actually, the authors’ procedure is like adding bananas to a statistic on apples and then claiming the statistic to be on apples alone.

2) However, the authors had also added relevant data. These were all displayed in the 1997‐article, but some of them were removed again in the 1998‐article. Strangely enough, the removed data were precisely those data which indicated a beginning disagreement with the solar theory, a disagreement that would become dramatic when more observational data became available in the following years (See my 2003‐article for details).

Svensmark has never tried to defend himself properly, i.e., by a peer reviewed reply article, against these serious charges. Friis‐Christensen once tried to defend himself against the criticism of the 1991‐Science article. However, the apparent rebuttal in his reply‐article was only achieved by introducing two simple arithmetic errors, which were well hidden in the article and quite difficult to spot. The two arithmetic errors artificially created an agreement of the new observational data with the values of the 1991‐article. Applying correct arithmetic the support of the solar theory totally vanishes (See my 2003‐article for details). "

Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Solar-ClimateLAUTPREPRINT.pdf
 
Oops. Looks like some more major errors in another failed Cosmic Ray hypothesis paper:

Laken, B. A. (2015). Reply to'Influence of cosmic ray variability on the monsoon rainfall and temperature': a false-positive in the field of solar-terrestrial research. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.00505.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00505

"A litany of research has been published claiming strong solar influences on the Earth's weather and climate. Much of this work includes documented errors and false-positives, yet is still frequently used to substantiate arguments of global warming denial. This manuscript reports on a recent study by Badruddin & Aslam (2014), hereafter BA14, which claimed a highly significant (p=1.4×10−5) relationship between extremes in the intensity of the Indian monsoon and the cosmic ray flux. They further speculated that the relationship they observed may apply across the entire tropical and sub-tropical belt, and be of global importance. However, their statistical analysis---and consequently their conclusions---were wrong. Specifically, their error resulted from an assumption that their data's underlying distribution was Gaussian. But, as demonstrated in this work, their data closely follow an ergodic chaotic distribution biased towards extreme values. From a probability density function, calculated using a Monte Carlo sampling approach, I estimate the true significance of the BA14 samples to be p=0.91.
 
Last edited:
Here's a 2012 paper that examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements.

Laken, B. A., Pallé, E., Čalogović, J., & Dunne, E. M. (2012). A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 2, A18.
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html

"At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends"

"it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds."
 
Quaestio said:
Here's a 2012 paper that examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements.

Laken, B. A., Pallé, E., Čalogović, J., & Dunne, E. M. (2012). A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 2, A18.
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html

"At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends"

"it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds."
Click to expand...

While I have not seen the data, I would not be so quick to dismiss a concept as having no contribution.
The basic concept is not that the quantity of cosmic rays is changing, but rather that some aspect of solar actrivity
if regulating the amount of cosmic rays allowed into the atmosphere,
amplifying or attenuating, the effects form energy from the sun.
 
longview said:
While I have not seen the data, I would not be so quick to dismiss a concept as having no contribution.
The basic concept is not that the quantity of cosmic rays is changing, but rather that some aspect of solar actrivity
if regulating the amount of cosmic rays allowed into the atmosphere,
amplifying or attenuating, the effects form energy from the sun.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
I have posted Svensmark's work to this thread and it's easy to find, so I'm not going to repost. Fact is that #1515 above makes a critical point. Criticisms of Svensmark's work have been effectively rebutted by Svensmark himself or his collaborators. In the end, observations will go a long way toward settling this matter. If Svensmark's hypothesis is valid then the cooling which began after 2016 should continue for years, perhaps decades (with, to be sure, the occasional El Nino pause). We shall see.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have posted Svensmark's work to this thread and it's easy to find, so I'm not going to repost. Fact is that #1515 above makes a critical point. Criticisms of Svensmark's work have been effectively rebutted by Svensmark himself or his collaborators. In the end, observations will go a long way toward settling this matter. If Svensmark's hypothesis is valid then the cooling which began after 2016 should continue for years, perhaps decades (with, to be sure, the occasional El Nino pause). We shall see.
Click to expand...

One thing is sure, 2018 is looking to be almost a full .1°C below 2017, which will cut into the total observed warming.
The GISS Oct temp will be out tomorrow, but the RSS 2018 Oct temperature was .28 below Oct 2017.
With only 2 months left in 2018, the current average is down by .1°C already.
 
longview said:
One thing is sure, 2018 is looking to be almost a full .1°C below 2017, which will cut into the total observed warming.
The GISS Oct temp will be out tomorrow, but the RSS 2018 Oct temperature was .28 below Oct 2017.
With only 2 months left in 2018, the current average is down by .1°C already.
Click to expand...

The data will settle this debate.
 
Surface Detail said:
I'm not the one claiming that every downward blip marks the end of a trend. And then quietly forgetting about the claim as the upward trend continues.
Click to expand...

2016>2017>2018>. . . .

The end is not in sight. Btw, how are you enjoying your heaping helping of crow? Is it tasty?
 
Quaestio said:
Seems there were some major errors in some of Svensmark's work from the 1990's. Perhaps the start of a trend of sloppy work?

From Peter Laut
Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark
Former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...nts/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN.pdf

Flawed Science

"In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen presented observations which apparently lent support to the solar theory. At a conference in Birmingham they showed that some solar related data (this time the intensity of galactic cosmic rays) correlated strongly with some terrestrial data (total cloud cover). The agreement was striking for the years 1984‐90, which was the period for which data were available. However, as every scientist knows, an agreement only extending over a short time span, here seven years, can be misleading. So, to test a possible causal relationship, the authors in their later publications, two articles published in 1997 and 1998 respectively, added some more recent data, which they claimed demonstrated that the close agreement extended beyond the seven years.

However, close inspection of their work revealed two fatal flaws: . . .


Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Solar-ClimateLAUTPREPRINT.pdf
Click to expand...

Peter Laut - SourceWatch


https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_Laut



Dec 3, 2009 - Peter Laut has seen accusations of lobbyism for man-made climate ... he was being employed and funded by the Danish Energy Agency. [1][2] ... In particular Peter Laut has been very vocal in his critique of Henrik Svensmark, ...

Peter Laut has seen accusations of lobbyism for man-made climate change, over a number of years where he engaged in climate debate under the pre-tense that he was an independent scientist, while he was being employed and funded by the Danish Energy Agency. [1][2]
During the years Peter Laut was under the employ of the Danish Energy Agency he published the study:"Solar activity and terrestrial climate: An analysis of some purported correlations"[3] In which he wrote in relation to theories about solar influence on climate, "My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data." [4], abstract
In particular Peter Laut has been very vocal in his critique of Henrik Svensmark, a danish proponent of theories placing high emphasis on the sun in connection with global warming.[[5]]
Allegations of lobbyism and admitted political agendas behind his debunking of solar influence theories continue to arise in danish newpapers[6][7], following his recent update on theories of solar induced global warming. [8] This recent work is worded in an openly biased way, and provides no new scientific updates, merely the political position of the author (he then references his 2003 publication at the end).
It is to be noted that Peter Laut has been paid, at hourly rates of 400 Dkr., for thousands of hours worth of clima-related work by vested interest groups (The Danish Energy Agency).[9]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom