Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

[RAMOSS]

Yup. Svensmark was predicting the imminent cooling of the Earth nearly a decade ago. It hasn't happened; instead the earth has continued to warm rapidly since then. He's already been proven wrong, but still the AGW deniers desperately cling to his discredited hypothesis.

Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark [in 2009].

If it wasn't for the human activity of the green house gases,he would be right. However, he fails to acknowledge that fact. Between the solar miniumn and the precession of axis, we WOULD have been in a cooling period, if it wasn't for green house gasses being put in the atmosphere

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, for one, the corrlation between the solar miniumn and earth is well known, and it only effects things by 1 degree, which is not enogh to overcome the greenhouse gasses.

View attachment 67226303

If it wasn't for the human activity of the green house gases,he would be right. However, he fails to acknowledge that fact. Between the solar miniumn and the precession of axis, we WOULD have been in a cooling period, if it wasn't for green house gasses being put in the atmosphere

Stefan Rahmstorf is a lying propagandist. His name on your graph renders it not credible.

The error consistently made by the advocates of AGW orthodoxy is to discuss solar influence only in terms of irradiance. Shaviv has written extensively on this error (linked several times in this thread) and estimates solar influence at five to seven (possibly even ten) times what the IPCC acknowledges.

 

[Threegoofs]

That chart doesn't match the trend of temperature at all!

You really have to know nuclear physics to understand Rick and Morty.

 

[RAMOSS]

Stefan Rahmstorf is a lying propagandist. His name on your graph renders it not credible.

The error consistently made by the advocates of AGW orthodoxy is to discuss solar influence only in terms of irradiance. Shaviv has written extensively on this error (linked several times in this thread) and estimates solar influence at five to seven (possibly even ten) times what the IPCC acknowledges.

Prove it.

One thing I noticed is that , well, his college degrees are actually IN earth sciences. His PHD thesis is specifically address climate change.

So, I would say that his qualifications about climate are much greater than svensmark.

 

[Threegoofs]

They charge a fee to prevent frivolous submissions. This is a non-issue deflection.

Hmm. That’s the function of peer review and editors.

But you would t know that, since WUWT doesn’t really understand peer review either.

 

[Threegoofs]

The authors of this paper are highly respected, and their peer review interactions are published with the paper. I don't know how it could be better. Now if you'd care to discuss the actual issues, please do so.

Gavin Schmidt, who truly IS well respected, says the opposite:

I mean... when the director of GISS says no one takes you seriously...

 

[Jack Hays]

Hmm. That’s the function of peer review and editors.

But you would t know that, since WUWT doesn’t really understand peer review either.

Sorry, but you just exposed your ignorance.

 

[Jack Hays]

Gavin Schmidt, who truly IS well respected, says the opposite:

I mean... when the director of GISS says no one takes you seriously...

You have already exposed Schmidt's ignorance and/or dishonesty in this thread.

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry, but you just exposed your ignorance.

What? Editors and peer reviewers don’t form a gate to ensure quality publishing?

Okaaaay.

 

[Threegoofs]

You have already exposed Schmidt's ignorance and/or dishonesty in this thread.

You exposed someone’s (and repeatedly-see post above) ...but not Schmidt’s.

 

[Jack Hays]

Prove it.

One thing I noticed is that , well, his college degrees are actually IN earth sciences. His PHD thesis is specifically address climate change.

So, I would say that his qualifications about climate are much greater than svensmark.

On substance, please see #19, 20, 21, 22 and 24. On Rahmstorf:

Heil KlimaFuehrer Rahmstorf! - Real Climatologists - Article
columbia-phd.org › Articles › 2017/08/14

---

Heil KlimaFuehrer Rahmstorf! August 14, 2017. The intended audience of this article is really Germans, who suffer from Stefan Rahmstorf, but I (Dr. Duane Thresher) think Americans and the rest of the world will find it ...

 

[Jack Hays]

What? Editors and peer reviewers don’t form a gate to ensure quality publishing?

Okaaaay.

They do, but in an open access journal, they in turn are protected by the fee structure.

 

[Absentglare]

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.
... 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).

Full journal reference
H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
The paper is here http://www.nature.com/ncomms

Your argument is that he took his motivated reasoning to its conclusion and "closed the loop" of circular logic that produced it.

Your claim is that he completed his work, so why do the temperature predictions he created bear almost no resemblance to temperature fluctuations? Explain how we can pump tons of new molecules into the atmosphere, dramatically changing its global composition, without having any impact, whatsoever.

 

[RAMOSS]

On substance, please see #19, 20, 21, 22 and 24. On Rahmstorf:

Heil KlimaFuehrer Rahmstorf! - Real Climatologists - Article
columbia-phd.org › Articles › 2017/08/14

---

Heil KlimaFuehrer Rahmstorf! August 14, 2017. The intended audience of this article is really Germans, who suffer from Stefan Rahmstorf, but I (Dr. Duane Thresher) think Americans and the rest of the world will find it ...

And how does that blog prove anything?? That is not even a well put together blog.

There should be a real big red flag showing that isn't a good source. Let's look at the 'about us' page.

We are the most qualified real climatologists to ever come out as global warming skeptics, including even more than Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry, and Dr. Roy Spencer, although we acknowledge their courage. We only came out after President Trump was elected because before that it seemed futile.

Right then and there, that kind of rhetoric is showing extreme bias, strong ego, and being very unprofessional With an 'about us' like that, it shows that source is highly suspect.

Sorry, you will have to do something better than such an unprofessional web site.

 

[Threegoofs]

They do, but in an open access journal, they in turn are protected by the fee structure.

Wow. That’s weak.

 

[Threegoofs]

The Black Knight rides again!!!

 

[Threegoofs]

And how does that blog prove anything?? That is not even a well put together blog.

There should be a real big red flag showing that isn't a good source. Let's look at the 'about us' page.



Right then and there, that kind of rhetoric is showing extreme bias, strong ego, and being very unprofessional With an 'about us' like that, it shows that source is highly suspect.

Sorry, you will have to do something better than such an unprofessional web site.

Wow.

That’s an embarrassing post even for him.

 

[RAMOSS]

Wow.

That’s an embarrassing post even for him.

I will admit that one of them has the education. However, from what I have read, he has let his very conservative politics get in the way of his science.

 

[Jack Hays]

Wow. That’s weak.

It's the way it works.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your argument is that he took his motivated reasoning to its conclusion and "closed the loop" of circular logic that produced it.

Your claim is that he completed his work, so why do the temperature predictions he created bear almost no resemblance to temperature fluctuations? Explain how we can pump tons of new molecules into the atmosphere, dramatically changing its global composition, without having any impact, whatsoever.

Please see #19. Closing the loop referred to identifying the atmospheric mechanism by which GCR's generate CCN's, which you would know if you followed the subject.

• The second role of ions is that they accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei – seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. The more ions the more aerosols become cloud condensation nuclei. It is this second property of ions which is the new result published in Nature Communications.

 

[Jack Hays]

And how does that blog prove anything?? That is not even a well put together blog.

There should be a real big red flag showing that isn't a good source. Let's look at the 'about us' page.



Right then and there, that kind of rhetoric is showing extreme bias, strong ego, and being very unprofessional With an 'about us' like that, it shows that source is highly suspect.

Sorry, you will have to do something better than such an unprofessional web site.

I will admit that one of them has the education. However, from what I have read, he has let his very conservative politics get in the way of his science.

I hope you realize that your disapproval is in no way disqualifying.

 

[Threegoofs]

I hope you realize that your disapproval is in no way disqualifying.

No. Your desperate blog references are completely disqualifying, though!

 

[Jack Hays]

No. Your desperate blog references are completely disqualifying, though!

The truth is where you find it. Here's an FYI. Price is $5,200.

[h=2]Costs[/h]Nature Communications does not charge submission fees or page charges. However, authors submitting to Nature Communications from 20th October 2014 are required to publish their work open access, through payment of an article processing charge (APC), in the case of eventual acceptance. Please see the open access page for APC pricing and details of our free funding support service.

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, for one, the corrlation between the solar miniumn and earth is well known, and it only effects things by 1 degree, which is not enogh to overcome the greenhouse gasses.

View attachment 67226303

How was that determined? Do you know?

 

[Visbek]

Uh huh. Let's look at some other climate science papers published by Nature and its affiliated journals recently, shall we?

Greater future global warming inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672

The far reach of ice-shelf thinning in Antarctica
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0020-x

Industrial-age doubling of snow accumulation in the Alaska Range linked to tropical ocean warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18022-5

Future loss of Arctic sea-ice cover could drive a substantial decrease in California’s rainfall
(abstract points out this is another way AGW will affect the environment)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01907-4

Intensification of terrestrial carbon cycle related to El Niño–Southern Oscillation under greenhouse warming
(i.e. how anthropogenic forcing will intensify the ENSO-related carbon cycle)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01831-7

New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01792-x

Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0009-5

So, I'm curious. Why didn't you make a post about any of these articles, published in various Nature journals... including Nature Communications? Why aren't any of these "game changers" that will cause a "paradigm shift" and will knock people's socks off?

Oh, and I'm curious. Since 1880, global average temperatures have risen about 0.94°C. Based on Svensmark's paper, what percentage of that is attributable to increased ionization in the troposphere due to cosmic ray flux? And where does he quantify that in the paper?