• 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!

Global Cooling Is Under Way

Jack Hays said:
The data say otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, Jack. The Data supports the argument for global warming. As too do boots on the ground all around the freaking globe.
 
Somerville said:
One must wonder about the credibility of the site when they get the name of the Japan Meteorological Agency wrong. Then a bit of checking and we find that @KiryeNet is the Twitter account of a "climate skeptic" AND that only 9 stations of more than 100 are used to make the graphs.

then there is the Climate Change Report from the Canadian government which disagrees with your source.
Click to expand...

NTZ was clear regarding their selection of stations.

". . . Today we look at Canadian temperature trends using the data from the Japan Meteorological Institute (JMA) for stations where they have data available going back to at least the mid 1990s. . . . "
 
Somerville said:
What data would that be?
Click to expand...

calamity said:
No, Jack. The Data supports the argument for global warming. As too do boots on the ground all around the freaking globe.
Click to expand...

And then:


The End of the Current Climate Consensus?

First and foremost, I claim that the sun has a large effect on climate and that the IPCC is ignoring this effect. This I showed when I studied the heat going into the oceans using 3 independent datasets - ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, and most impressively, tide gauge records (see reference #1 below), and found the same thing in a subsequent study based on another data set, that of satellite altimetry (see reference #2 below). Note that both are refereed publications in the journal of geophysical research, which is the bread and butter journal of geophysics. So no one can claim it was published in obscure journals, yet, even though the first paper has been published already in 2008, it has been totally ignored by the climate community. In fact, there is no paper (right or wrong) that tried to invalidate it. Clearly then, the community has to take it into consideration. Moreover, when one considers that the sun has a large effect on climate, the 20th century warming is much better explained (with a much smaller residual). See reference #3 below, again refereed). . . .

As I said above, we now know from significant empirical data where the solar climate link comes from. It is through solar wind modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux which governs the amount of atmospheric ionization, and which in turn affects the formation of cloud condensation nuclei and therefore cloud properties (e.g., lifetime and reflectivity). How do we know that? . .

One should be aware that we are still missing the last piece of the puzzle, which is to take the various mechanisms, plug them into a global aerosol model and see that there is a sufficiently large variation in the cloud condensation nuclei. This takes time, but compared with the aforementioned examples of genetics, neutrinos or dark matter, it will definitely take us much less to provide this last piece, but in any case, the evidence should have forced the community to seriously consider it already.

Nonetheless, even with the above large body of empirical evidence, the link has been attacked left and right. A really small number has been valid and interesting, but not to the extent to invalidate the existence of a cosmic ray climate link, just to modify our understanding of it. The rest has been mostly bad science, as I exemplify below. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
A demonstration of cowardice.
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly.

Too cowardly to get dismantled at an AGU conference, so he get the GWPF to pay him to write what is essentially a self published book, aimed at deniers because real scientists treat him as the joke he is.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Exactly.

Too cowardly to get dismantled at an AGU conference, so he get the GWPF to pay him to write what is essentially a self published book, aimed at deniers because real scientists treat him as the joke he is.
Click to expand...

I guess you should warn the Royal Astronomical Society.

[h=2]Near-Earth supernova activity during the past 35 Myr[/h][FONT=&quot]Sørensen, M., [/FONT]Svensmark, H.[FONT=&quot] & Jørgensen, U. G., [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2019[/FONT][FONT=&quot], (Submitted) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In : Royal Astronomical Society. Monthly Notices.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14 p.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
NTZ was clear regarding their selection of stations.

". . . Today we look at Canadian temperature trends using the data from the Japan Meteorological Institute (JMA) for stations where they have data available going back to at least the mid 1990s. . . . "
Click to expand...

At least two of the stations cited are listed as airports. The Canadian temperature records for some stations go back to the mid 19th century.
 
Threegoofs said:
When you can’t actually compete in scientific arenas, get a fossil fuel funded think tank with no credibility to publish and disseminate your work!
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
A demonstration of cowardice.
Click to expand...

You do know that we are going thru a solar minimum stage at this time - don't you? This stage of solar output will end this year. It will be interesting to see if global temps continue to rise as solar activity increases or if they will decrease - in either case, Svensmark will be debunked once again.
 
Somerville said:
You do know that we are going thru a solar minimum stage at this time - don't you? This stage of solar output will end this year. It will be interesting to see if global temps continue to rise as solar activity increases or if they will decrease - in either case, Svensmark will be debunked once again.
Click to expand...

The next time Svensmark is debunked will be the first time.
 
Jack Hays said:
I guess you should warn the Royal Astronomical Society.

[h=2]Near-Earth supernova activity during the past 35 Myr[/h][FONT="]Sørensen, M., [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/persons/henrik-svensmark"]Svensmark, H.[/URL][FONT="] & Jørgensen, U. G., [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT="]2019[/FONT][FONT="], (Submitted) [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT="]In : Royal Astronomical Society. Monthly Notices.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT="]14 p.[/FONT][FONT="]Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review[/FONT]
Click to expand...



What is the relationship between a paper on "Near-Earth supernova activity" and Svensmark's claims about solar activity affecting the Earth's climate?
 
Somerville said:
What is the relationship between a paper on "Near-Earth supernova activity" and Svensmark's claims about solar activity affecting the Earth's climate?
Click to expand...

Near-Earth supernovae are significant sources of galactic cosmic rays, which are important in Svensmark's theory of climate change.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I said if we had 800 trees.

That is a "what if" scenario.
Click to expand...

BS!! That was an "if-then", not a "what-if". To paraphrase you while using the same logic: If there were 800 trees before but now only 20 then the loss is quite dramatic. Like you keep saying Lord... words have meaning.

Lord of Planar said:
I started this warming and growth of areas from natural setting. You keep tiring to limit it to a static setting. The natural settings before we built up had a variety of trees, grasses, brush, etc. depending on the area. The whole evaporation idea is based of the land use changes. You seemed truly shocked and surprised when I mentioned trees.

My God man. You tried convincing everyone the water couldn't be released for evaporation after it went deeper into the soil. Then I brought in trees, and reacted as if I changed a goalpost when all along I was speaking of our land use changes
Click to expand...

Damn Lord... you are so full of it! I am the one who first mentioned trees when you were claiming that water could evaporate from deep down in the soil. It was me that pointed out to you that the only way that could happen is through trees.

And now that most of your stupid loss of evaporation theory has been shown to be mostly exaggerations and speculation you want to move the goalposts and make it about trees. And, of course, you are going to do it with more exaggerations and speculation and no real data.

Would you please quit making a fool of yourself and go and really do some research for once. And it is going to take more than the change in the number of trees. You are going to need to find out what the differences are between the different kinds of trees. And how much evapotranspiration and cooling they provide. And maybe find out about the differences during the changing seasons or amounts of water in the soil.

I know that is a lot of work but that is exactly what I regularly have to do to debunk your BS. Why don't you show us all that you can handle something like that? I know I am getting tired of having to always do it for you.
 
Jack Hays said:
The next time Svensmark is debunked will be the first time.
Click to expand...

Not quite the "first time", more like the 10th or 20th time.

Henrik Svensmark
Rebuttal to Svensmark assertions: Svensmark has received a fair amount of attention in the denialist world. But why? He says he is being ignored. But Why? Is it because there is a great conspiracy of scientists trying to hide the truth about galactic cosmic rays? Or is that that Svensmarks conclusions were not supported by the work presented? As it turns out, his conclusions were not sufficiently supported.

An overview based on the work of Peter Laut
The scientific rebuttal to Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen's work regarding solar as the cause for modern global warming.

Peter Laut found errors in their paper and published a paper addressing the corrections. When the errors are removed the conclusions and assumptions of Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen simply do not stand. Solar can not account for modern global warming.

2009 Letter: Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science

2003 Paper: Solar activity and terrestrial climate: An analysis of some purported correlations. Published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Technical University of Denmark, Department of Physics, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark (Status of 28. February 2003: In press) Received 14 February 2002; received in revised form 22. January 2003; accepted 4 February 2003

The Evidence is Against Svensmark's Assumptions
The Laschamp Event (aka. The Laschamp Anomaly) illustrates in the paleo record that GCR's show no significant correlation between GCR's and temperature. The event shows up in many paleo records so confidence is reasonably high.
(. . .)
"While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes." Dr. Rasmus Benestad, Norwegian Meteorological Institute
(. . .)
Svensmark on YouTube
It is interesting to note the Svensmark Video is produced in such a way as to indicate that there is some sort of conspiracy by the climate science community in debunking his work. The reality is, he did not do work that was able to support his conclusions.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Deny Deny Deny -- not unexpected
Click to expand...


Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate

Guest essay by Mike Jonas “And what might they be?” – Dr. Leif Svalgaard For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of…

June 10, 2017 in Solar.

[FONT=&quot]1. Henrik Svensmark[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Back in 1997, when Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first floated their hypothesis on the effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) on Earth’s climate, it shook the world of climate science. But it was going to take a lot more than a shake to dislodge climate science’s autocrats. Their entrenched position was that climate was primarily driven by greenhouse gases, and that consequently man-made CO2 would be catastrophic (the CAGW hypothesis), and they were going to do whatever it took to protect their turf.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Those CAGW scientists were supported by remarkably little evidence. Laboratory experiments had verified the mechanics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but there was no empirical evidence that it was a major driver of climate. There were correlations, but inspection showed that temperature change always preceded CO2 change. The only support for CAGW came from climate models which had the assumed effects of CO2 built in. The models gave imaginary projections of what future climate would be like if CAGW was correct, but they could not reproduce past climate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In 2003, Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder in the book The Chilling Stars [1] described how cloud cover changes caused by variations in cosmic rays are a major contributor to global temperature changes, and stated that human influences had been exaggerated.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Empirical evidence supported their theory, which they called Cosmoclimatology [2][3], and Henrik Svensmark had conducted an experiment to verify its mechanics. So Henrik Svensmark was fully justified in claiming that Cosmoclimatology “is already at least as secure, scientifically speaking, as the prevailing paradigm of forcing by variable greenhouse gases.”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The next step was to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Henrik Svensmark and his team at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC, now DTU Space) submitted a straightforward paper describing their experimental results to a peer-reviewed journal. They were stunned when the climate science tsars closed ranks and the paper was rejected. At this point, the clean-shaven Henrik Svensmark, as a kind of protest, decided not to shave until the paper was published. He had a pretty impressive beard by the time Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions [4] was eventually published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A. The process had taken 16 months.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here we are, twenty years after the GCR hypothesis was first floated, and the CAGW paradigm is still in place and virtually unscathed. This is in spite of increasing evidence supporting Cosmoclimatology and in spite of the epic failure of climate models to predict climate. Paradigm protection has been seen many times in science, but I wonder whether it has ever been as corrupt and as extreme as it currently is in climate science.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I should have mentioned that there was strong opposition against experimental testing of Cosmoclimatology. Think about that – scientists trying to prevent a thoery being tested – and I think you will agree that my use of the word “corrupt” in the previous paragraph was justified. . . . [/FONT]
 
Somerville said:
A "theory" which is closer to a hypothesis than an actual scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you agree that climate models (AGW) using CO2 emission guesses, and warm forcing fantasies, to year 2100 is closer to pseudoscience than to a hypothesis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom