• 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

Surface Detail said:
I clearly owe you an apology, Jack.
Click to expand...

You do, and I accept it, but it should not be for the reasons mentioned in your post.

It should be because of your continued presentation of a dumbed-down caricature straw man that you have pretended was Svensmark's thesis. Please keep the following in mind.

1. Svensmark's thesis is not about solar influence on climate or galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influence on climate, but about the influence on climate created by their dynamic interaction.
2. TSI is a measure of solar activity but there is no claim that TSI captures the full solar output relevant to GCR flux. Shaviv has been quite explicit about this.
3. GCR impact on Earth is variable, even apart from solar influence. That is why Svensmark spends so much time on supernovae and why Shaviv is so interested in our solar system's travel through and across the spiral arms of our galaxy.
4. With so many variables in play, there is not at present a simple "if . . . then . . ." correlations test for the Svensmark thesis. That is why Svensmark et al 2017 was so important. Now that the hypothesized process has been discovered, an increasing flow of productive research results should follow.
5. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is likely to be an important battleground. Higher ECS is congenial to AGW climate explanations. Lower ECS points to solar/GCR explanations. This is a point made by Shaviv.
 
Jack Hays said:
You do, and I accept it, but it should not be for the reasons mentioned in your post.

It should be because of your continued presentation of a dumbed-down caricature straw man that you have pretended was Svensmark's thesis. Please keep the following in mind.

1. Svensmark's thesis is not about solar influence on climate or galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influence on climate, but about the influence on climate created by their dynamic interaction.
2. TSI is a measure of solar activity but there is no claim that TSI captures the full solar output relevant to GCR flux. Shaviv has been quite explicit about this.
3. GCR impact on Earth is variable, even apart from solar influence. That is why Svensmark spends so much time on supernovae and why Shaviv is so interested in our solar system's travel through and across the spiral arms of our galaxy.
4. With so many variables in play, there is not at present a simple "if . . . then . . ." correlations test for the Svensmark thesis. That is why Svensmark et al 2017 was so important. Now that the hypothesized process has been discovered, an increasing flow of productive research results should follow.
5. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is likely to be an important battleground. Higher ECS is congenial to AGW climate explanations. Lower ECS points to solar/GCR explanations. This is a point made by Shaviv.
Click to expand...

Yes...

These simpleton's do not understand the differences of the TSI spectrum changes, or magnetic influences, and solar winds. I'll bet he's googling his ass off... or not because of confirmation bias... as to what GCR means.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes...

These simpleton's do not understand the differences of the TSI spectrum changes, or magnetic influences, and solar winds. I'll bet he's googling his ass off... or not because of confirmation bias... as to what GCR means.
Click to expand...

They want to debate against straw men of their own creation. Pretty easy to win that way.
 
Jack Hays said:
They want to debate against straw men of their own creation. Pretty easy to win that way.
Click to expand...

Not really.

They think they win because they really don't grasp the facts.
 
Jack Hays said:
You do, and I accept it, but it should not be for the reasons mentioned in your post.

It should be because of your continued presentation of a dumbed-down caricature straw man that you have pretended was Svensmark's thesis. Please keep the following in mind.

1. Svensmark's thesis is not about solar influence on climate or galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influence on climate, but about the influence on climate created by their dynamic interaction.
2. TSI is a measure of solar activity but there is no claim that TSI captures the full solar output relevant to GCR flux. Shaviv has been quite explicit about this.
3. GCR impact on Earth is variable, even apart from solar influence. That is why Svensmark spends so much time on supernovae and why Shaviv is so interested in our solar system's travel through and across the spiral arms of our galaxy.
4. With so many variables in play, there is not at present a simple "if . . . then . . ." correlations test for the Svensmark thesis. That is why Svensmark et al 2017 was so important. Now that the hypothesized process has been discovered, an increasing flow of productive research results should follow.
5. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is likely to be an important battleground. Higher ECS is congenial to AGW climate explanations. Lower ECS points to solar/GCR explanations. This is a point made by Shaviv.
Click to expand...

Jack, until you have learned how to compare graphs with different timescales, there is simply no point in discussing the further details of Svensmark's thesis with you.

Once again, take a look at the graph you posted, the green curve of which shows tropical cloud cover. You will surely agree that it shows a trend of falling cloud cover from the start of the graph, in 1983, to the end, in 2009.

Now, here is the tricky bit. If we want to compare this graph with that of the graph of TSI that you posted, we need to use the same time interval of the TSI graph, i.e. from 1983 to 2009. As we already determined, this means using the last 1/15th or so of that graph. Look closely at the blue line representing the 11-year average TSI, and you will see that its trend is downwards.

For the period 1983 to 2009, we therefore have a period of falling cloud cover and falling TSI. Now, Svensmark's theory predicts that cloud cover should rise, not fall, as TSI falls. This is why the graphs appear to contradict Svensmark's thesis.
 
Surface Detail said:
Now, Svensmark's theory predicts that cloud cover should rise, not fall, as TSI falls. This is why the graphs appear to contradict Svensmark's thesis.
Click to expand...

You're obviously not paying attention, because TSI is not necessarily determinative.

[FONT=&quot]". . . What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of [/FONT]this[FONT=&quot]) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitivite to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates. . . ." [/FONT]

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

Blog topic:
cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


After being asked by 5 independent people about the new sunspot number reconstruction and that it doesn’t show that the sun should have contributed any warming to the 20th century, I decided to write about it here. I have one word to describe it – irrelevant. It is also a good opportunity to write about new results (well, one that saw the light of day a few months ago) showing again that the sun has a large effect on climate. Yet, the world will still continue to ignore it. Am I surprised? No I’m not.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
You're obviously not paying attention, because TSI is not necessarily determinative.

[FONT=&quot]". . . What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of [/FONT]this[FONT=&quot]) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitivite to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates. . . ." [/FONT]

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

Blog topic:
cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


After being asked by 5 independent people about the new sunspot number reconstruction and that it doesn’t show that the sun should have contributed any warming to the 20th century, I decided to write about it here. I have one word to describe it – irrelevant. It is also a good opportunity to write about new results (well, one that saw the light of day a few months ago) showing again that the sun has a large effect on climate. Yet, the world will still continue to ignore it. Am I surprised? No I’m not.
Click to expand...

That's a hilarious bit of backtracking, Jack! After arguing doggedly, and wrongly, that the cloud cover graph and TSI graphs support, rather than contradict, Svensmark's theory, you now claim that TSI is not necessarily determinative and that sunspots are irrelevant. Why, then, have you kept on posting graphs of TSI and sunspots throughout this thread?

Can you, perhaps, post a graph that does actually support Svensmark's theory? Does such a graph exist?
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
That's a hilarious bit of backtracking, Jack! After arguing doggedly, and wrongly, that the cloud cover graph and TSI graphs support, rather than contradict, Svensmark's theory, you now claim that TSI is not necessarily determinative and that sunspots are irrelevant. Why, then, have you kept on posting graphs of TSI and sunspots throughout this thread?

Can you, perhaps, post a graph that does actually support Svensmark's theory? Does such a graph exist?
Click to expand...

There's been no backtracking and no graph undermines Svensmark. The point is, as I've already posted, there's no simple "if . . . then . . . ." test.
 
Surface Detail said:
That's a hilarious bit of backtracking, Jack! After arguing doggedly, and wrongly, that the cloud cover graph and TSI graphs support, rather than contradict, Svensmark's theory, you now claim that TSI is not necessarily determinative and that sunspots are irrelevant. Why, then, have you kept on posting graphs of TSI and sunspots throughout this thread?

Can you, perhaps, post a graph that does actually support Svensmark's theory? Does such a graph exist?
Click to expand...

Please review my #1026.
 
Solar
[h=1]Solar Activity Flatlines: Weakest solar cycle in 200 years[/h]By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, No Tricks Zone In March our supplier of energy was more inactive than in the previous months. The sunspot number was only 2,5, which is only 8% of what is normal for this month into the average cycle (month 112).Only solar cycles 5 and 6 were weaker. A sunspot…
 
Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am perfectly aware that the sun's spectrum, magnetic field and plasma emissions vary. What I am not aware of is any evidence whatsoever of correlations between these factors and cloud cover. Why, for example, is there no evidence of variations in cloud cover corresponding to the 11-year solar cycle? Surely the lack of such evidence is already a major stumbling block for Svenslark's theory.
 
Surface Detail said:
I am perfectly aware that the sun's spectrum, magnetic field and plasma emissions vary. What I am not aware of is any evidence whatsoever of correlations between these factors and cloud cover. Why, for example, is there no evidence of variations in cloud cover corresponding to the 11-year solar cycle? Surely the lack of such evidence is already a major stumbling block for Svenslark's theory.
Click to expand...

Why should the variations necessarily correspond to the 11-year cycle?
 
Surface Detail said:
I am perfectly aware that the sun's spectrum, magnetic field and plasma emissions vary. What I am not aware of is any evidence whatsoever of correlations between these factors and cloud cover. Why, for example, is there no evidence of variations in cloud cover corresponding to the 11-year solar cycle? Surely the lack of such evidence is already a major stumbling block for Svenslark's theory.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the solar magnetic flux is tied to the 11 year cycle. The magnetic patterns change over an approximate 22 year period, but that is not the same as intensity, and it is the patterns rather than intensity that make the 11 year cycle.
 
Surface Detail said:
If cloud cover is influenced by solar activity, then it should show some correlation with the 11-year cycle in solar activity. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Your overly simplistic thinking doesn't apply to solar dynamics.
 
Solar
[h=1]NASA: Sunspots Vanishing Faster than Expected[/h]by Dr. Tony Philips, NASA Spaceweather Sunspots are becoming scarce. Very scarce. So far in 2018 the sun has been blank almost 60% of the time, with whole weeks going by without sunspots. Today’s sun, shown here in an image from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, is typical of the featureless solar disk: The fact that…
 
Lord of Planar said:
You are assuming that the solar magnetic flux is tied to the 11 year cycle. The magnetic patterns change over an approximate 22 year period, but that is not the same as intensity, and it is the patterns rather than intensity that make the 11 year cycle.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. First you say, "the magnetic patterns change over an approximate 22 year period", followed by, "it is the patterns ... that make the 11 year cycle". This makes it difficult to discern what point, if any, you are trying to make.

The actual situation is that solar magnetic cycle has a 22-year period in total, with the polarity of the magnetic fields associated with the sunspots switching every 11 years. We therefore get two peaks in solar magnetic activity for every 22-year cycle, each of opposite sunspot polarity.

So far, though, I've not seen any evidence at all of correlations between cloud cover and any aspect of solar activity. The graph of cloud cover that Jack posted earlier showed no sign of an 11-year or 22-year cycle. Also, Svensmark's 2009 prediction of imminent global cooling has not materialised; if anything, warming has accelerated since then. So, while Svensmark's hypothesis is interesting, the evidence seems to be against it.
 
Surface Detail said:
You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. First you say, "the magnetic patterns change over an approximate 22 year period", followed by, "it is the patterns ... that make the 11 year cycle". This makes it difficult to discern what point, if any, you are trying to make.

The actual situation is that solar magnetic cycle has a 22-year period in total, with the polarity of the magnetic fields associated with the sunspots switching every 11 years. We therefore get two peaks in solar magnetic activity for every 22-year cycle, each of opposite sunspot polarity.
Click to expand...
And you wonder why I don't take anything you say serious. You just stated things well known.

Yes, there are two 11 year cycles in the 22 year magnetic dance.

Why do you think you have to explain such well known things to those of us who actually study the sciences?

Surface Detail said:
So far, though, I've not seen any evidence at all of correlations between cloud cover and any aspect of solar activity.
Click to expand...
Why would there be? The signal is not the most significant one. Nobody claimed it is the dominant signal.

Surface Detail said:
The graph of cloud cover that Jack posted earlier showed no sign of an 11-year or 22-year cycle.
Click to expand...
Why should it? There are several variables you know. It is a weaker signal that doesn't exactly correlate to the 11 years.

Surface Detail said:
Also, Svensmark's 2009 prediction of imminent global cooling has not materialised; if anything, warming has accelerated since then. So, while Svensmark's hypothesis is interesting, the evidence seems to be against it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but look at how many years out he said too.

I really wish you would learn the sciences if you are going to debate them..
 
Lord of Planar said:
And you wonder why I don't take anything you say serious. You just stated things well known.

Yes, there are two 11 year cycles in the 22 year magnetic dance.

Why do you think you have to explain such well known things to those of us who actually study the sciences?


Why would there be? The signal is not the most significant one. Nobody claimed it is the dominant signal.


Why should it? There are several variables you know. It is a weaker signal that doesn't exactly correlate to the 11 years.


Yes, but look at how many years out he said too.

I really wish you would learn the sciences if you are going to debate them..
Click to expand...

Your confused posts give the impression that you have very little scientific understanding at all.

If variations in the solar magnetic field have any effect at all on cloud cover, then there should be some evidence of 11 or 22 year periodicity in cloud cover measurements. This is simply not observed. The cloud cover posted by Jack shows no indication whatsoever of any correlation between cloud cover and the solar cycle. Hence Svensmark's theory is disproved.
 
Surface Detail said:
Your confused posts give the impression that you have very little scientific understanding at all.

If variations in the solar magnetic field have any effect at all on cloud cover, then there should be some evidence of 11 or 22 year periodicity in cloud cover measurements. This is simply not observed. The cloud cover posted by Jack shows no indication whatsoever of any correlation between cloud cover and the solar cycle. Hence Svensmark's theory is disproved.
Click to expand...

This post is an expression of lamentable ignorance. In addition to my #1026, you should review this post to refresh your knowledge of the science.

Climate News / Solar
[h=1]Climate Change, due to Solar Variability or Greenhouse Gases? Part B.[/h]By Andy May In a previous post, Part A here, we discussed the role of oceans, the Earth’s orbit, and human greenhouse gas emissions on climate change. In this post we discuss the impact of solar variability. How does the Earth naturally respond to warmer temperatures? Clearly the Earth has been warming for the past…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom