• 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

Jack Hays said:
You and I have both agreed Jens did not cite Henrik. Are you having trouble keeping up?
Click to expand...
So do you also accept that the papers are unrelated? And that Henrik's paper had no influence whatsoever on Jens?
 
Visbek said:
So do you also accept that the papers are unrelated? And that Henrik's paper had no influence whatsoever on Jens?
Click to expand...

No. I said one did not cite the other. Please try to keep all this straight.
 
Jack Hays said:
I see the Know-Nothings have weighed in.
Click to expand...

It was you who introduced the dubious tactic of "supporting" your arguments by citing papers that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue in question, but which have authors with the same names as climate researchers. 3G is merely adopting your bizarre debating technique :lamo
 
Surface Detail said:
It was you who introduced the dubious tactic of "supporting" your arguments by citing papers that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue in question, but which have authors with the same names as climate researchers. 3G is merely adopting your bizarre debating technique :lamo
Click to expand...

The paper cited in #941 is indeed related. The paper cited in #953 does of course list Henrik Svensmark as an author. It is sad to see you all so graceless in defeat.
 
Jack Hays said:
The paper cited in #941 is indeed related. The paper cited in #953 does of course list Henrik Svensmark as an author. It is sad to see you all so graceless in defeat.
Click to expand...

It is quite obvious to anyone reading this thread that you mistook J. Svensmark for H. Svensmark in post #941 and cited his paper with no idea whatsoever of the content of that paper (which, of course, has nothing to do with H. Svensmark's cosmic ray theory). You have thus revealed yourself once again to be the troll we all know you are. It's quite a blunder, even by your poor standards!
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
It is quite obvious to anyone reading this thread that you mistook J. Svensmark for H. Svensmark in post #941 and cited his paper with no idea whatsoever of the content of that paper (which, of course, has nothing to do with H. Svensmark's cosmic ray theory). You have thus revealed yourself once again to be the troll we all know you are. It's quite a blunder, even by your poor standards!
Click to expand...

You are quite wrong (and obviously so) on both counts. My only question about Jens Svensmark was (and remains) whether he is another son of Henrik (like Jacob) or some other relation, or not related at all. The point was and is (as indicated by my specific call out to Visbek and our previous exchange) that other research will now follow in the wake of Svensmark et al 2017.

As to relevance, please recall that the properties and impact of ions are central to the mechanism explained in Svensmark et al 2017, so a paper discussing those properties is of course germane.

I am disappointed you feel the need to dissemble to try to discredit me, but I realize you have little left to lose. I feel sorry for you.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are quite wrong (and obviously so) on both counts. My only question about Jens Svensmark was (and remains) whether he is another son of Henrik (like Jacob) or some other relation, or not related at all. The point was and is (as indicated by my specific call out to Visbek and our previous exchange) that other research will now follow in the wake of Svensmark et al 2017.

As to relevance, please recall that the properties and impact of ions are central to the mechanism explained in Svensmark et al 2017, so a paper discussing those properties is of course germane.

I am disappointed you feel the need to dissemble to try to discredit me, but I realize you have little left to lose. I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Do stop wriggling Jack. You're fibbing again. You cited J. Svensmark's paper as a response to Visbak's claim that H. Svensmark's theories have already been rejected. But J. Svensmark's paper has absolutely nothing to do with H. Svensmark's theories. Not only does J. Svensmark not reference any of H. Svensmark's work; he is working in a completely different field of physics.

Your refusal to admit that you simply confused their names does you no credit at all. It just confirms that you are trolling.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are quite wrong (and obviously so) on both counts. My only question about Jens Svensmark was (and remains) whether he is another son of Henrik (like Jacob) or some other relation, or not related at all. The point was and is (as indicated by my specific call out to Visbek and our previous exchange) that other research will now follow in the wake of Svensmark et al 2017.

As to relevance, please recall that the properties and impact of ions are central to the mechanism explained in Svensmark et al 2017, so a paper discussing those properties is of course germane.

I am disappointed you feel the need to dissemble to try to discredit me, but I realize you have little left to lose. I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Nice Black Knighting after the biggest fail of 2018 (although the Steve Case post totally misinterpreting methane contribution of the IPCC was a double facepalm too).
 
Jack Hays said:
You are quite wrong (and obviously so) on both counts. My only question about Jens Svensmark was (and remains) whether he is another son of Henrik (like Jacob) or some other relation, or not related at all.
Click to expand...
Why on Earth would that matter?

They're different people, working in different fields.


The point was and is (as indicated by my specific call out to Visbek and our previous exchange) that other research will now follow in the wake of Svensmark et al 2017.

As to relevance, please recall that the properties and impact of ions are central to the mechanism explained in Svensmark et al 2017, so a paper discussing those properties is of course germane.
Click to expand...
lol

No, it really isn't. Jens is talking about ion tunnelling in the context of quantum mechanics; he published a paper on the same general topic in 2016. Henrik is talking about an experiment at CERN which tries to reproduce interactions between CGRs and the atmosphere, and he never discusses tunneling. There is no link between the two papers whatsoever.

I might add that this is why Jens didn't cite Henrik. If Jens was in any way using any information from Henrik's new paper, then he would be required to cite it. And yet, as you yourself admit, he didn't. Hmmmmmmm

By the way, it is ludicrous to say that "because both papers are about ions, they're related." Do you know how many papers are published about ions? Heck, nearly 38,000 publications from this year alone discuss ions:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=ion&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33


I am disappointed you feel the need to dissemble to try to discredit me, but I realize you have little left to lose. I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...
You've discredited yourself. You really should just admit you made a mistake, and move on.
 
Surface Detail said:
Do stop wriggling Jack. You're fibbing again. You cited J. Svensmark's paper as a response to Visbak's claim that H. Svensmark's theories have already been rejected. But J. Svensmark's paper has absolutely nothing to do with H. Svensmark's theories. Not only does J. Svensmark not reference any of H. Svensmark's work; he is working in a completely different field of physics.

Your refusal to admit that you simply confused their names does you no credit at all. It just confirms that you are trolling.
Click to expand...

Actually, I seem to be the only one here who's being honest. Please go back to Visbek's #810. The issue was the influence Henrik Svensmark's work would have on others. Jens Svensmark was cited specifically because he is not Henrik Svensmark. The dishonest nastiness in this thread is exclusively your contribution.

And whether it's a different field is irrelevant; the properties and interactions of ions are relevant.
 
Threegoofs said:
Nice Black Knighting after the biggest fail of 2018 (although the Steve Case post totally misinterpreting methane contribution of the IPCC was a double facepalm too).
Click to expand...

As I said, the Know-Nothings are weighing in.
 
Visbek said:
Why on Earth would that matter?

They're different people, working in different fields.



lol

No, it really isn't. Jens is talking about ion tunnelling in the context of quantum mechanics; he published a paper on the same general topic in 2016. Henrik is talking about an experiment at CERN which tries to reproduce interactions between CGRs and the atmosphere, and he never discusses tunneling. There is no link between the two papers whatsoever.

I might add that this is why Jens didn't cite Henrik. If Jens was in any way using any information from Henrik's new paper, then he would be required to cite it. And yet, as you yourself admit, he didn't. Hmmmmmmm

By the way, it is ludicrous to say that "because both papers are about ions, they're related." Do you know how many papers are published about ions? Heck, nearly 38,000 publications from this year alone discuss ions:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=ion&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33



You've discredited yourself. You really should just admit you made a mistake, and move on.
Click to expand...

There has been no mistake, only the dishonest nastiness with which you have chosen to associate yourself. So be it.
As noted earlier, inasmuch as H. Svensmark's cosmoclimatology has ion interactions at its center, the work of J. Svensmark is certainly relevant.
 
Last edited:
[h=3]The Galileo of Global Warming | RealClearPolitics[/h]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/.../the_galileo_of_global_warming_113090.html



Feb 10, 2012 - So if Svensmark is right, lower solar radiation means more cosmic rays, more clouds, and a cooler Earth, while higher solar radiation means fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer Earth. Those who have followed the global warming controversy over the years may recall that cloud-formation is one ...
 
Surface Detail said:
Do stop wriggling Jack. You're fibbing again. You cited J. Svensmark's paper as a response to Visbak's claim that H. Svensmark's theories have already been rejected. But J. Svensmark's paper has absolutely nothing to do with H. Svensmark's theories. Not only does J. Svensmark not reference any of H. Svensmark's work; he is working in a completely different field of physics.

Your refusal to admit that you simply confused their names does you no credit at all. It just confirms that you are trolling.
Click to expand...

In plain language, your #943 was a lie, intended to convey a false impression.
 
Jack Hays said:
In plain language, your #943 was a lie, intended to convey a false impression.
Click to expand...

You are the liar here, Jack, and everyone can see that. It is obvious that you cited a new Svensmark paper simply to give the appearance of supporting your argument against Visbek, while not having any understanding of the content of the paper or even noticing that the author was a different Svensmark! You clearly have no interest at all in real science; all you are doing is trying to confuse the issue. The only remaining question is your motives for doing so. It is money? Or do you have some sort of malevolent antipathy to humanity?
 
Surface Detail said:
You are the liar here, Jack, and everyone can see that. It is obvious that you cited a new Svensmark paper simply to give the appearance of supporting your argument against Visbek, while not having any understanding of the content of the paper or even noticing that the author was a different Svensmark! You clearly have no interest at all in real science; all you are doing is trying to confuse the issue. The only remaining question is your motives for doing so. It is money? Or do you have some sort of malevolent antipathy to humanity?
Click to expand...

Your claim that I did not know the author was a different Svensmark is completely without foundation and unsupported by context. Your post was a lie.
The truth is resilient, and shall overcome.
 
Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

www.cfact.org › All Posts


Jan 12, 2018 - But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmarkdemonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar ... See my CFACT -2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/. ...... Ignoring solar radiation reaching the surface and citing a CARTOONIST!

. . . One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.
The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.
As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom