• 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 Viewer)

This is right in line with a point Nir Shaviv made some time ago.


[h=1]Study: variations in global warming trend are caused by oceans[/h]More vindication for Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. who has said that global ocean heat content is the best metric for tracking global warming. From the University of Southampton: New study finds variations in global warming trend are caused by oceans New research has shown that natural variations in global mean temperature are always forced by…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
This is right in line with a point Nir Shaviv made some time ago.


[h=1]Study: variations in global warming trend are caused by oceans[/h]More vindication for Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. who has said that global ocean heat content is the best metric for tracking global warming. From the University of Southampton: New study finds variations in global warming trend are caused by oceans New research has shown that natural variations in global mean temperature are always forced by…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

This has been obvious in science for decades. It's just little reported.
 
Climate News
[h=1]Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling[/h]The drop in temperatures at least merits a “Hey, what’s going on here?” story. Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier? Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official…
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate News
[h=1]Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling[/h]The drop in temperatures at least merits a “Hey, what’s going on here?” story. Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier? Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official…
Click to expand...

From Gavin Schmidt (head of NASA GISS... a reliable source, unlike the WUWT crap):

Looks like 2018 will be one of the top five hottest years, despite El Niño being nonexistent.

fee60de13326bf578ed637741354da94.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
From Gavin Schmidt (head of NASA GISS... a reliable source, unlike the WUWT crap):

Looks like 2018 will be one of the top five hottest years, despite El Niño being nonexistent.
Click to expand...
I think a fair question would be why is Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, publishing a graph with a different baseline
that that officially used by the GISS?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Here is the header information,
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980

sources: GHCN-v3 1880-04/2018 + SST: ERSST v5 1880-04/2018
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
Click to expand...
Yet Gavin Schmidt, chose a graph with a different baseline (1880 to 1899).
Perhaps he wanted his graph to look more dramatic.
 
longview said:
I think a fair question would be why is Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, publishing a graph with a different baseline
that that officially used by the GISS?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Here is the header information,

Yet Gavin Schmidt, chose a graph with a different baseline (1880 to 1899).
Perhaps he wanted his graph to look more dramatic.
Click to expand...

Possibly because he’s specifically pointing out the baseline from the 19th century.

I mean... it LITERALLY SAYS THAT on the figure!

The graph ‘looks’ the same no matter what baseline you use, Einstein.
 
Threegoofs said:
Possibly because he’s specifically pointing out the baseline from the 19th century.

I mean... it LITERALLY SAYS THAT on the figure!

The graph ‘looks’ the same no matter what baseline you use, Einstein.
Click to expand...
I know it says it on the graph, the question is why did he use a different baseline,
from the one his department officially uses?
 
longview said:
I know it says it on the graph, the question is why did he use a different baseline,
from the one his department officially uses?
Click to expand...

Because it’s specifically discussing the temp above 19th century baseline, since using the 1950-80 baseline would make no sense when talking about the warmest years ever recorded by GISS.

And the graph and data points literally do not change either way, despite your bizarre insinuation.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because it’s specifically discussing the temp above 19th century baseline, since using the 1950-80 baseline would make no sense when talking about the warmest years ever recorded by GISS.

And the graph and data points literally do not change either way, despite your bizarre insinuation.
Click to expand...

Actually the baseline is irrelevant for an anomaly data set like the GISS.
He would need a reason to alter the baseline.
 
longview said:
changing the baseline looks more dramatic, few other reasons work.
Click to expand...

I swear, you don’t even understand simple graphing.

The baseline is only to show the one degree line.

Nothing looks ‘more dramatic’ except your desperate flailing.
 
Jack Hays said:
Now we are getting to the long-awaited fundamental debate. Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and others have identified the mechanism by which solar interaction with galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influences Earth's climate. Their research strikes at the core of AGW orthodoxy, and will surely provoke a vigorous debate. We may be witnessing a paradigm-shifting moment as described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.


New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth

Last week I hinted at this upcoming paper, which was embargoed until this morning. I noted then something Dr. Roy Spencer said in his book about clouds: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists and how this new paper could be the “holy grail” of climate science, if it is…
Continue reading →

Today, we have news of something that modulates cloud cover in a new paper by Henrik Svensmark in Nature Communications.
PRESS RELEASE: DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark
A breakthrough in the understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth´s cloud cover and thereby climate is published today in the journal Nature Communications. The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei – the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes affecting the properties of clouds. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. Since clouds are essential for the amount of Solar energy reaching the surface of Earth the implications can be significant for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and also for a future climate changes.
Cloud condensation nuclei can be formed by the growth of small molecular clusters called aerosols. It has until now been assumed that additional small aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this. The new results reveal, both theoretically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei. It gives a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity plays a role in variations in Earth’s climate. For example, the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000 AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 AD both fits with changes in Solar activity.
“Finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by Solar activity or by super nova activity can change climate.”
​
says Henrik Svensmark, from DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark, lead author of the study. Co- authors are senior researcher Martin Bødker Enghoff (DTU Space), Professor Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Jacob Svensmark, (University of Copenhagen).
Click to expand...


I will be looking now myself for peer reviews. However, this thesis asks us to accept then, that solar activity (maybe) and supernova activity, (probably not enough) has been on a gradual climb for over 100 years and higher activity yet, in the last 25-30 years.

I mention that last 25-30 years because in that time, Phx., Ariz. for example (1990 - 2015) suffered 320 new record high temps. and over 100 new record high, low temps. with the low temp. always nearing or over 90F. Scientists predict a slow increase (25 years is a trend) to where sometime in the future, pic a date, 2030 or 2040...that from the same May through Sept. period, Phx. will never get below 90F degrees at all. We'll see. Hope they research that. (had to trim)
 
Pedestrian said:
I will be looking now myself for peer reviews. However, this thesis asks us to accept then, that solar activity (maybe) and supernova activity, (probably not enough) has been on a gradual climb for over 100 years and higher activity yet, in the last 25-30 years.

I mention that last 25-30 years because in that time, Phx., Ariz. for example (1990 - 2015) suffered 320 new record high temps. and over 100 new record high, low temps. with the low temp. always nearing or over 90F. Scientists predict a slow increase (25 years is a trend) to where sometime in the future, pic a date, 2030 or 2040...that from the same May through Sept. period, Phx. will never get below 90F degrees at all. We'll see. Hope they research that. (had to trim)
Click to expand...

I commend your thought out input.

Can I ask you what you would consider the criteria for failure of the CAGW hypothesis would be?

If global temperatures do not rise by 0.1c in the next 10 years woud that do it?
 
Pedestrian said:
I will be looking now myself for peer reviews. However, this thesis asks us to accept then, that solar activity (maybe) and supernova activity, (probably not enough) has been on a gradual climb for over 100 years and higher activity yet, in the last 25-30 years.

I mention that last 25-30 years because in that time, Phx., Ariz. for example (1990 - 2015) suffered 320 new record high temps. and over 100 new record high, low temps. with the low temp. always nearing or over 90F. Scientists predict a slow increase (25 years is a trend) to where sometime in the future, pic a date, 2030 or 2040...that from the same May through Sept. period, Phx. will never get below 90F degrees at all. We'll see. Hope they research that. (had to trim)
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but I appreciate your interest. The key is the solar/GCR flux. Increased solar output adds heat and blocks the GCR's that generate cooling. Supernova output increases GCR's and promotes cooling.
 
Threegoofs said:
I swear, you don’t even understand simple graphing.

The baseline is only to show the one degree line.

Nothing looks ‘more dramatic’ except your desperate flailing.
Click to expand...

It is good to see you still have your blinders on!
 
Climate News
Are we headed for a deep solar minimum?

Have you been keeping an eye on Sol lately? One of the top astronomy stories for 2018 may be what’s not happening, and how inactive our host star has become. The strange tale of Solar Cycle #24 is ending with an expected whimper: as of May 8th, the Earthward face of the Sun had been spotless for 73 out…
 
[h=3]Citations - inspire-hep[/h]inspirehep.net/record/925516/citations?ln=en



(6) Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth - Svensmark, Henrik Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 423 (2012) 1234-1253 arXiv:1210.2963 [astro-ph.SR].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom