• 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

Dittohead not! said:
and if it doesn't, if instead it continues to warm, then there will be yet another blogger claiming that global warming has ended. The "debate" about evolution has been going on now for about a century and a half with the young Earthers still unconvinced, so I expect the climate change "debate" will continue for at least that long, even though the signs are already unmistakable.
Click to expand...

Evolution is irrelevant to this discussion, and the analogy is usually put forward as a way to insult climate skeptics. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore it this time.
 
Surface Detail said:
With regard to the relative contribution of cosmic rays and solar activity to global warming:

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

"Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. 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."
Click to expand...

"Page not found" on your link.
Shaviv has pointed out many times that the solar contribution is undervalued for two reasons: "Mainstream" climate science doesn't know how to assess it accurately, and does not want to know the result anyway.

[FONT=&quot]". . . Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations. . . ." [/FONT]

The oceans as a calorimeter | ScienceBits

www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter


Apr 12, 2009 - A calorimeter is a device which measures the amount of heat given off in a chemical or physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth's oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and reemits every solar cycle.



Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JA012989/full
by NJ Shaviv - ‎2008 - ‎Cited by 30 - ‎Related articles
Nov 4, 2008 - With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the ...


 
Jack Hays said:
Evolution is irrelevant to this discussion, and the analogy is usually put forward as a way to insult climate skeptics. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore it this time.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
The reason the analogy is put forward is that it's a near perfect analogy. The only place it really breaks down is that, in another hundred and fifty or so years, the results of climate change will be so undeniable that everyone will accept science over wishful thinking. Evolution, on the other hand, challenges religious beliefs, and that is always a loser.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Page not found" on your link.
Shaviv has pointed out many times that the solar contribution is undervalued for two reasons: "Mainstream" climate science doesn't know how to assess it accurately, and does not want to know the result anyway.

[FONT="]". . . Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations. . . ." [/FONT][/I]

[FONT=Roboto][B][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter"]The oceans as a calorimeter | ScienceBits[/URL][/B]

www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter


Apr 12, 2009 - A calorimeter is a device which measures the amount of heat given off in a chemical or physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth's oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and reemits every solar cycle.


[/FONT]
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JA012989/full
by NJ Shaviv - ‎2008 - ‎Cited by 30 - ‎Related articles
Nov 4, 2008 - With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the ...
Click to expand...


Apologies - here is the link again:

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

"Conclusions

Numerous searches have been made to try establish whether or not cosmic rays could have affected the climate, either through cloud formation or otherwise. We have one possible hint of a correlation between solar activity and the mean global surface temperature. This is comprised of an oscillation in the temperature of amplitude ±0.07° in amplitude with a 22 year period. The cosmic ray data show a similar oscillation but delayed by 1–2 years. The long term change in the cosmic ray rate is less than the amplitude of the 22 year variation on the cosmic ray rate. Using the changing cosmic ray rate as a proxy for solar activity, this result implies that less than 14% of global warming seen since the 1950s comes from changes in solar activity. Several other tests have been described and their results all indicate that the contribution of changing solar activity either through cosmic rays or otherwise cannot have contributed more than 10% of the global warming seen in the twentieth century.

We conclude that cosmic rays and solar activity which we have examined here, in some depth, therefore cannot be a very significant underestimated contributor to the global warming seen in the twentieth century."
 
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, I linked to that article a few days ago.

Here are several more papers which find little or no correlation between CR and global temperatures.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253.full

https://www.debatepolitics.com/redi...pringer.com/article/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x

https://www.debatepolitics.com/redi...elibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50996/full

https://www.debatepolitics.com/redi...er.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3?null
Click to expand...

And then, of course, there is the failure of the cosmic ray theory to explain other characteristics of recent warming, such as the cooling stratosphere and enhanced night-time warming. Both of these are natural consequences of greenhouse warming.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Thanks.
The reason the analogy is put forward is that it's a near perfect analogy. The only place it really breaks down is that, in another hundred and fifty or so years, the results of climate change will be so undeniable that everyone will accept science over wishful thinking. Evolution, on the other hand, challenges religious beliefs, and that is always a loser.
Click to expand...

Ah but it's not. Opposition to AGW orthodoxy is science-based.
 
Surface Detail said:
Apologies - here is the link again:

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

"Conclusions

Numerous searches have been made to try establish whether or not cosmic rays could have affected the climate, either through cloud formation or otherwise. We have one possible hint of a correlation between solar activity and the mean global surface temperature. This is comprised of an oscillation in the temperature of amplitude ±0.07° in amplitude with a 22 year period. The cosmic ray data show a similar oscillation but delayed by 1–2 years. The long term change in the cosmic ray rate is less than the amplitude of the 22 year variation on the cosmic ray rate. Using the changing cosmic ray rate as a proxy for solar activity, this result implies that less than 14% of global warming seen since the 1950s comes from changes in solar activity. Several other tests have been described and their results all indicate that the contribution of changing solar activity either through cosmic rays or otherwise cannot have contributed more than 10% of the global warming seen in the twentieth century.

We conclude that cosmic rays and solar activity which we have examined here, in some depth, therefore cannot be a very significant underestimated contributor to the global warming seen in the twentieth century."
Click to expand...

Thank you for relaunching the link.

I'll make three points.
Section 4, "Cloud Droplet Formation" is rendered obsolete by the paper which is the topic of this thread.
Section 6, "A Direct Search . . ." includes the usual error (called out by Shaviv) of focusing on irradiance.
Section 2.1, "Prehistoric Searches" is best left to Shaviv himself. He's quite forceful.

[h=3]EUTHANIZING OVERHOLT ET AL.: HOW BAD CAN A BAD PAPER BE?[/h][FONT=&quot]... it, not one, but two people independently asked me about Overholt et al. , which supposedly ruled out the idea that passages through ... be discarded in the waste bin of history, but given that Overholt et al. is still considered at all, I have no choice but to more openly ...
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah but it's not. Opposition to AGW orthodoxy is science-based.
Click to expand...

LOL, sure. That's why every scientific organization in the world has come to the same conclusions. Seems to me it's politically based.
 
Surface Detail said:
And then, of course, there is the failure of the cosmic ray theory to explain other characteristics of recent warming, such as the cooling stratosphere and enhanced night-time warming. Both of these are natural consequences of greenhouse warming.
Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:
LOL, sure. That's why every scientific organization in the world has come to the same conclusions. Seems to me it's politically based.
Click to expand...

Shaviv wrote this during his year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

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



By Nir Shaviv · Published 2015 ... Nir Shaviv. Henrik Svensmark is using the gamma-ray irradiated chamber in the background to understand the effect of cosmic rays on climate by pinpointing the ... However, we actually ended up putting the paper aside for almost a decade because of two nagging inconsistencies.
 
Jack Hays said:
Shaviv wrote this during his year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

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



By Nir Shaviv · Published 2015 ... Nir Shaviv. Henrik Svensmark is using the gamma-ray irradiated chamber in the background to understand the effect of cosmic rays on climate by pinpointing the ... However, we actually ended up putting the paper aside for almost a decade because of two nagging inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

Fascinating, but it doesn't address my point that you quoted in any way. The cosmic ray theory cannot account for stratospheric cooling or enhanced night-time warming.
 
Surface Detail said:
Fascinating, but it doesn't address my point that you quoted in any way. The cosmic ray theory cannot account for stratospheric cooling or enhanced night-time warming.
Click to expand...

Shaviv and Svensmark do not claim that their theory accounts for everything. Nor does anyone claim there is no more research to be done.
 
Jack Hays said:
Shaviv and Svensmark do not claim that their theory accounts for everything. Nor does anyone claim there is no more research to be done.
Click to expand...

But for one theory to supersede another, the new theory must explain everything that the old theory does and more.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. It displaces it as an explainer of more.
Click to expand...

Even theories change

"There is usually some anomalous observation that doesn't seem to fit with our current understanding. Scientists assume that by working at such anomalies, they'll either disentangle them to see how they fit with the current theory or contribute to a new theory. And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn't quite fit with the old theory. When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, over a period of time (it might take years), scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory."
 
Surface Detail said:
Even theories change

"There is usually some anomalous observation that doesn't seem to fit with our current understanding. Scientists assume that by working at such anomalies, they'll either disentangle them to see how they fit with the current theory or contribute to a new theory. And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn't quite fit with the old theory. When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, over a period of time (it might take years), scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory."
Click to expand...

Yes, and . . . ?
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, and . . . ?
Click to expand...

The cosmic ray theory cannot explain everything that the greenhouse theory does, e.g. stratospheric cooling and enhanced night-time warming. It cannot therefore replace greenhouse theory as the best explanation for recent warming.
 
Surface Detail said:
The cosmic ray theory cannot explain everything that the greenhouse theory does, e.g. stratospheric cooling and enhanced night-time warming. It cannot therefore replace greenhouse theory as the best explanation for recent warming.
Click to expand...

It explains more. In the end the greenhouse theory will be assigned a subsidiary position.
 
Jack Hays said:
It explains more. In the end the greenhouse theory will be assigned a subsidiary position.
Click to expand...

If you're just going to repeat the same argument that I've just addressed, there's no point in continuing to respond to you. Please go to my post #166 and loop ad infinitum.
 
Jack Hays said:
Shaviv has pointed out many times that the solar contribution is undervalued for two reasons: "Mainstream" climate science doesn't know how to assess it accurately, and does not want to know the result anyway.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true. I see no way the statement can be false. Ever since the First Assessment Report, certain natural climate variables were given low levels of understanding. If they actually wanted to have proper science, they would have been funding more studies for the sun's indirect effect, along with how clouds modulate energy, aerosols, and a few other things.
 
Surface Detail said:
Even theories change

"There is usually some anomalous observation that doesn't seem to fit with our current understanding. Scientists assume that by working at such anomalies, they'll either disentangle them to see how they fit with the current theory or contribute to a new theory. And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn't quite fit with the old theory. When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, over a period of time (it might take years), scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory."
Click to expand...

After a night's sleep I'll try again. This debate is actually about how much weight to accord different climate factors. For some time the dominant paradigm has been to treat the greenhouse effect as the dominant factor and relegate others, like the solar/GCR phenomenon, to subsidiary status. The point of Svensmark's and Shaviv's work is to suggest the dominant paradigm has it backwards -- that the solar/GCR phenomenon has more to do with our climate than does the greenhouse effect.
 
Jack Hays said:
It explains more. In the end the greenhouse theory will be assigned a subsidiary position.
Click to expand...

When the prediction of a cooling Earth comes to pass, then it might. If you think it will, then take Bill Nye's bet. You could make some easy money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom