• 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!

The Role of the Sun in Global Warming

PoS said:
I dont click on your links since your posts have always been dishonest- and this latest one that you even openly admit to. I merely made the argument from the quote you gave me, and thats good enough since the BS you put out is meaningless anyway.
Click to expand...

Your projection of your own dishonesty is noted. As is your desperate need to remain ignorant.
 
Quaestio said:
Your projection of your own dishonesty is noted. As is your desperate need to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

You openly admitted in another thread that you dont want to prove any points youve made- youre just here to spew out insults and belittle people who arent on your side, so why bother?
 
PoS said:
You openly admitted in another thread that you dont want to prove any points youve made- youre just here to spew out insults and belittle people who arent on your side, so why bother?
Click to expand...

That's more of your dishonest bull****. Where's the supposed post saying that?

And once again, you are projecting your own behaviour on to me.
 
PoS said:
You openly admitted in another thread that you dont want to prove any points youve made- youre just here to spew out insults and belittle people who arent on your side, so why bother?
Click to expand...

He certainly avoids the substance of the discussion.
 
Shaviv's work published by the Institute for Advanced Study.

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



These cosmic rays primarily consist of protons and heavier nuclei with energies ... They can explain many of the past climate variations, which in turn can be used to study the Milky Way. The idea that cosmic rays may affect climate through modulation of the cosmic ray .... Copyright © 2019 Institute for Advanced Study.
 
Jack Hays said:
Shaviv's work published by the Institute for Advanced Study.

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



These cosmic rays primarily consist of protons and heavier nuclei with energies ... They can explain many of the past climate variations, which in turn can be used to study the Milky Way. The idea that cosmic rays may affect climate through modulation of the cosmic ray .... Copyright © 2019 Institute for Advanced Study.
Click to expand...

It is one thing to say cosmic rays may have an influence on Earth's climate, and something entirely different to claim that cosmic rays explain many of the past climate variations. The first statement being accurate since all they have thus far is an untested theory. So it may have an influence, we don't know yet. However, the second statement that it can explain many of the past climate variations makes the erroneous assumption that it has been proven that cosmic rays influence Earth's climate, which it has not.

I'm not disputing that ionized charged particles caused by a distant GRB could create cloud condensation nuclei in theory, but the theory needs to be taken out of the lab and tested in the real-world. I would like to know how they intend to differentiate between solar and cosmic radiation. Also, while we are able to track CMEs from the sun, tracking GRBs or other sources of cosmic radiation may prove to be more difficult.
 
Glitch said:
It is one thing to say cosmic rays may have an influence on Earth's climate, and something entirely different to claim that cosmic rays explain many of the past climate variations. The first statement being accurate since all they have thus far is an untested theory. So it may have an influence, we don't know yet. However, the second statement that it can explain many of the past climate variations makes the erroneous assumption that it has been proven that cosmic rays influence Earth's climate, which it has not.

I'm not disputing that ionized charged particles caused by a distant GRB could create cloud condensation nuclei in theory, but the theory needs to be taken out of the lab and tested in the real-world. I would like to know how they intend to differentiate between solar and cosmic radiation. Also, while we are able to track CMEs from the sun, tracking GRBs or other sources of cosmic radiation may prove to be more difficult.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth - Svensmark ...[/h]
[url]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 48 - ‎Related articles
Apr 24, 2012 - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · Volume 423, Issue 2 · Monthly ... supernovae affecting life on Earth. Henrik Svensmark.
[h=3]Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society | Calder's Updates[/h]
[url]https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/monthly-notices-of-the-royal-astronomical-society/
[/URL]



Apr 24, 2012 - Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark's latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae ...



[h=3]Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...[/h]
[url]https://www.ras.org.uk/news.../2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive53
[/URL]
Apr 24, 2012 - Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) sets out ... in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.



 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth - Svensmark ...[/h]
[url]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 48 - ‎Related articles
Apr 24, 2012 - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · Volume 423, Issue 2 · Monthly ... supernovae affecting life on Earth. Henrik Svensmark.
[h=3]Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society | Calder's Updates[/h]
[url]https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/monthly-notices-of-the-royal-astronomical-society/
[/URL]



Apr 24, 2012 - Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark's latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae ...



[h=3]Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...[/h]
[url]https://www.ras.org.uk/news.../2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive53
[/URL]
Apr 24, 2012 - Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) sets out ... in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Click to expand...

Did you read the paper you posted? It is a statistical analysis. There is no actual evidence. No supernova that they can point to and say it had an effect on Earth, or even the solar system. It is effectively just a study in probability. That does not constitute "evidence."
 
Glitch said:
Did you read the paper you posted? It is a statistical analysis. There is no actual evidence. No supernova that they can point to and say it had an effect on Earth, or even the solar system. It is effectively just a study in probability. That does not constitute "evidence."
Click to expand...
The theory is not that the rate of cosmic rays change, but that the amount that pass into the atmosphere and forms clouds, changes with
some types of solar activity. This affect amplifies and attenuates solar activity.
I think it goes something like this, a less active sun allows in more cosmic rays, so more clouds form, which further reduces
the energy from an already weak sun.
The inverse, is that a more active sun, blocks the cosmic rays causing fewer cloud to form and allowing in more energy from an already
active sun.
 
Glitch said:
Did you read the paper you posted? It is a statistical analysis. There is no actual evidence. No supernova that they can point to and say it had an effect on Earth, or even the solar system. It is effectively just a study in probability. That does not constitute "evidence."
Click to expand...

Of course it's a statistical analysis. And of course no one can point to a single supernova. The following is from the excellent link above by the late Nigel Calder.

. . . Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, It’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release athttp://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.
In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.
Here are the main results:
The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
Of course it's a statistical analysis. And of course no one can point to a single supernova. The following is from the excellent link above by the late Nigel Calder.

. . . Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, It’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release athttp://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.
In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.
Here are the main results:
The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around. . . .
Click to expand...

Odd... because you seem to disdain models.

Oh. Right.

Denier models are different.
 
longview said:
The theory is not that the rate of cosmic rays change, but that the amount that pass into the atmosphere and forms clouds, changes with
some types of solar activity. This affect amplifies and attenuates solar activity.
I think it goes something like this, a less active sun allows in more cosmic rays, so more clouds form, which further reduces
the energy from an already weak sun.
The inverse, is that a more active sun, blocks the cosmic rays causing fewer cloud to form and allowing in more energy from an already
active sun.
Click to expand...

I understand the theory. I also understand the difference between direct observation and statistical analysis. One is actual evidence the other is not.
 
Glitch said:
I understand the theory. I also understand the difference between direct observation and statistical analysis. One is actual evidence the other is not.
Click to expand...

So you agree, AGW is no better.
 
Jack Hays said:
Of course it's a statistical analysis. And of course no one can point to a single supernova. The following is from the excellent link above by the late Nigel Calder.

. . . Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, It’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release athttp://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.
In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.
Click to expand...

Then the author was mistaken when he claimed there was evidence. Statistical analysis is not evidence. Direct observation is evidence.

I dispute your claim, and the author's claim of an exceptionally close supernovae in the last 500 million years. There would be evidence of such an event even today, and there is none. The long-term survival of life on this planet depends on supernovae NOT being local. Not within a least 10,000 light years.

This is where the theory breaks down. There is no way to differentiate the effects cosmic radiation has on charged particles from the effects solar radiation has on those very same charged particles. All of the cloud condensation nuclei caused by ionized solar particles could be the result of solar radiation, with cosmic radiation playing little or no role at all.

There is absolutely no climate "coincidence" that has anything do with cosmic radiation, certainly none that have even a shred of actual evidence (I don't mean statistical analysis either). If you expect anyone to buy this theory you need to demonstrate that cosmic radiation has somehow managed to overcome solar radiation. Otherwise everything can be explained by solar activity.

It also makes no sense whatsoever to blame atmospheric CO2 for any of the temperature changes in the last 500 million years. Just 250 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was between 250 and 350 ppm, below today's current levels, but the planet's surface temperature was the highest ever recorded at between 35°C and 40°C. Which resulted in 96% of the marine life and 70% of the terrestrial life dying out. Then there was the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event 440 million years ago which was twice as bad as the one that killed the dinosaurs, when atmospheric CO2 was anywhere from 2,000 to 8,000 ppm, and the surface temperature of the planet dropped by 8°C to 10°C.

There is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean statistical analysis is not evidence? Of course it is. That's like saying temperature is not evidence.

It would be shocking if there were no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. However, it would effectively disembowel AGW as a working theory.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So you agree, AGW is no better.
Click to expand...

AWG is a leftist scam that has absolutely nothing do with science and everything to do with expanding the size and scope of government while redistributing wealth. That doesn't give anyone license to publish a paper based entirely on statistical analysis and yet claim that it is somehow "evidence." Because it isn't.
 
Glitch said:
AWG is a leftist scam that has absolutely nothing do with science and everything to do with expanding the size and scope of government while redistributing wealth. That doesn't give anyone license to publish a paper based entirely on statistical analysis and yet claim that it is somehow "evidence." Because it isn't.
Click to expand...

It is something to look at though. If you notice, I don't cling on to this idea, but I'll bet it has merit. The problem is quantifying it.

It makes perfect sense that the suns and earths magnetic field modulate high intensity energy into the atmosphere. The science is sound. Again, the only problem is properly quantifying the science, as we don't have a large enough laboratory, and only one earth.
 
Jay59 said:
What do you mean statistical analysis is not evidence? Of course it is. That's like saying temperature is not evidence.

It would be shocking if there were no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. However, it would effectively disembowel AGW as a working theory.
Click to expand...

If you directly observe the temperature, then that is evidence. If you merely surmised what the temperature might be based upon statistical probability then that is not evidence. Evidence in science requires observation, not statistical analysis.
 
Glitch said:
If you directly observe the temperature, then that is evidence. If you merely surmised what the temperature might be based upon statistical probability then that is not evidence. Evidence in science requires observation, not statistical analysis.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Too many things affect temperature. Too many variables to statistically quantify any.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It is something to look at though. If you notice, I don't cling on to this idea, but I'll bet it has merit. The problem is quantifying it.

It makes perfect sense that the suns and earths magnetic field modulate high intensity energy into the atmosphere. The science is sound. Again, the only problem is properly quantifying the science, as we don't have a large enough laboratory, and only one earth.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the underlying premise. That the ionization of solar particles (either by the sun or cosmic radiation) could create cloud condensation nuclei is not that difficult to believe. In the lab it certainly looks like cosmic radiation could create cloud condensation nuclei. However, in reality is it the solar or cosmic radiation that is creating the cloud condensation nuclei? Living in Alaska I see the visible effects of those ionized particles hitting the planet every Winter. What I can't tell you, and nobody else can either, is how many of those charged particles were ionized by solar radiation or by cosmic radiation.

Personally, I don't care. An ionized particle is still impacting the Earth, does its origin matter that much? However, being able to differentiate between solar and cosmic radiation is what this theory Dr. Svensmark is proposing requires. Something that I don't think it is possible to accomplish.
 
Glitch said:
There is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures.
Click to expand...

No, no correlation at all:

Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg


Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom