Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I think so.
The sad part is that you actually think that the GCR theory has been totally debunked based on short term study (20 years) compared to 700,000 years of PROVEN correlation that is not fully understood and is currently being studied.
The study you cited does NOT come close to disproving Svensmark's findings. Did you even attempt to research reactions to the Sloan and Wolfendale study? Or are you content to only look at science from a highly biased perspective? Sure looks that way.
Read Rusov, Shaviv, read the reactions, take an honest look at this study...and if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll plainly see that potential impact of GCR is significant and that there may be other related complex mechanisms at work that science is currently researching.
The potential ramifications of a significant GCR link are huge.
Bottom line...the GCR issue has NOT been debunked as you falsely assert. You failed dude....time to shut up....your mooing is rather annoying.
Haha. Looks like that made you mad. That study directly examined the theory put forth by Svensmark's study and tears it apart. This paper was peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal, exactly what you asked for.
Now all of a sudden because the paper doesn't say what you want, it doesn't count... it must be biased! Man, I never could have predicted THAT response.
I NEVER said that the paper doesn't say what I want...I NEVER said that the paper doesn't count...and I NEVER said that the paper was biased. How can you ever hope to objectively look at this subject when you cannot distinguish between reality and your imagination in such a simple straight-forward post?
What I said is this....that you should look at Rusov's and Shaviv's responses, read the reactions and then take an honest look at the study you cited....nothing more...nothing less. All I asked you to do was to take a little initiative to be objective...which you obviously failed to do. Instead you respond to a viewpoint that you totally fabricated...a viewpoint that I never expressed.
Oh jesus, whatever man. You asked for something, I provided it. Not only did I provide countervailing evidence, but evidence that DIRECTLY tested the assumptions of GCR and found them lacking. They tested the theory from several different angles, giving utmost deference to the GCR viewpoint. Nothing. It's not just their study, other people have examined the same phenomenon and also come up with the same results. Cosmic rays cannot account for the warming we have experienced.
Being objective doesn't mean to take studies that have been specifically refuted by a wide range of scientists and somehow still treat them as effectively providing a counter argument to man made global warming. That's called 'seeing what you want to see'.
If you actually read the Sloan and Wolfendale study you cited, you would've seen that their conclusion was that no more than 23% of the reduction in global low cloud cover at the time of the 1990 solar maximum was caused by the lower cosmic ray flux. They did NOT say there was no link between GCR and the climate as you've advocated. What did you do...just read the BBC Headline that was obviously wrong? Couldn't you at least taken 2 minutes to read the conclusion of the study that you offered as proof that the GCR theory was debunked??? I'll quote you "That's called 'seeing what you want to see'."
Further more, there's some serious problems with Sloan and Wolfendale study that have been recently voiced...but this of course is not reported by BBC or other pop media outlets. Eskimospy...I think it's a safe bet that you didn't make the slightest effort to do anything except a quick Google to find something that supported your position. And...you know...I really don't have a problem with that. But I have a huge problem with people who choose to be willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. There's no discussing boths sides of issues with you, no exchange of ideas, no objectively, you make up things that I never said...nothing except minimal intellectual effort and an incessant inflexibility of thought. Bottomline dude...the science is NOT settled...deal with it.
Is the causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover really dead?? - Shaviv, N.J.
"Sloan and Wolfendale raised three critiques which supposedly discredit the CRF/climate link. A careful check, however, reveals that the arguments are inconsistent with the real expectations from the link. Two arguments are based on the expectation for effects which are much larger than should actually be present. In the third argument, they expect to see no phase lag, where one should actually be present. When carefully considering the link, Sloan and Wolfendale did not raise any argument which bares any implications to the validity or invalidity of the link.
One last point. Although many in the climate community try to do their best to disregard the evidence, there is a large solar-climate link, whether on the 11-year solar cycle (e.g., global temperature variations of 0.1°C), or on longer time scales. Currently, the cosmic-ray climate link is the only known mechanism which can explain the large size of the link, not to mention that independent CRF variations were shown to have climatic effects as well. As James Whitcomb Riley supposedly once said:
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck"."
Galactic Cosmic Rays - Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 1. Theory - V. Rusov, A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, O. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev
"The fact that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) play one of the key parts in the mechanisms
responsible for the weather and climate variations observed at our planet is highly plausible [1, 2]. Summarizing the outcomes of numerous studies (see, e.g. [1-3]) concerned with the influence of cosmic ray flux (CRF) on atmospheric processes, particularly on the formation of charged aerosols (condensation nuclei of main greenhouse gas, i.e., water vapour), the following causal sequence of events can be appointed: brighter sun ? variations of solar activity and insolation ? modulation of galactic CRF ? cloudiness and thunderstorm activity variations ? albedo variations ? weather and climate variations."
Galactic Cosmic Rays - Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 2. Comparison of Theory with Experiment - V. Rusov, A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, O. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev
Sun-climate link: a reply to Sloan and Wolfendale
"Three weeks ago, we mentioned three recent preprints about cosmoclimatology, a theory in which galactic cosmic rays create clouds just like in a bubble chamber (and cool down the Earth unless they are filtered away).
Two of them supported the theory but the third, a paper written by Sloan and Wolfendale (paper, PDF),
didn't. Even without looking at the papers, you may guess which of these three preprints was reported by the media, for example by the Telegraph, UPI, and the BBC: 'No Sun link' to climage change
Recall that the paper argued that the cosmic influence on the climate is probably insignificant because the effect seems to have a wrong "fingerprint" - i.e. the dependence on the latitude.
Second, the British critics argued that the cloud cover leads the cosmic ray flux variations by three months or so. As a bonus, the critics also question the correct behavior of the theory during the so-called Forbush events. We will mention this additional subtle "fingerprint", too.
Skeptics are familiar with both types of these arguments - fingerprints and lags - in a different context, namely in the context of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect has a completely wrong fingerprint (see also Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer) and the historical CO2 concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years.
But seemingly similar arguments don't have to be equally valid. The main link of this article goes to Prof Nir Shaviv:
A flaw in the fingerprint argument
He explains that the fingerprint argument of the "skeptics" ;-) is incorrect because the cosmic rays relevant for cosmoclimatology are very high-energy (above 10 GeV or so), charged (ionizing) cosmic rays that are able to penetrate the atmosphere. These rays don't exhibit much variation caused by the Earth's magnetic field. It means that cosmoclimatology doesn't predict too strong a dependence on the magnetic latitude. It is only a few percent and the agreement was shown by Usoskin et al. (2004).
On the other hand, Sloan and Wolfendale incorrectly compare the cloud cover with the relatively low-energy cosmic rays that are absorbed in the upper layers of the atmosphere and that consequently have much stronger dependence on the latitude. These cosmic rays are almost exactly proportional to the flux of neutrons near the surface because the neutrons produced at higher layers of the atmosphere reach the surface almost without interruption. But they are also unable to ionize the atmosphere and create clouds.
Their failure to distinguish the different types of radiation - analogous to a naive skeptic's confusion between infrared and ultraviolet rays in the greenhouse effect - is the main reason for their faulty prediction of large latitude variations.
The lag
Another counter-argument by the "skeptics"
is the lag. Well, in this case, it is only argued to be around 3 months which is slightly less impressive a separation than those 800 years observed during the glaciation cycles, but 3 months is still a positive number.
This lag would indeed kill the causal relationship between cosmic rays and clouds if the cosmic rays were the only effect influencing the clouds. However, there are other effects, too. Only crazy people would like to argue that there only exists one cause of climate change and Nir Shaviv is not one of these crazy people.
More Shaviv on this blog
Nir goes well beyond the handwaving above. In fact, he quantitatively estimates the lag and his prediction turns out to be compatible with observations. The essence of his calculation is simple. The cloud cover oscillations are assumed to have two components. One of them is a direct consequence of the cosmic rays, as dictated by cosmoclimatology. It has virtually no lag and induces changes of the cloud cover by roughly 1.5% (Nir shows that this follows from the sensitivity corresponding to 1 - 1.5 per CO2 doubling).
However, the other component of the cloud cover is dictated by temperature which is known from Shaviv (2005) to lag by 1/8 of the solar cycle behind the solar activity and it induces fluctuations of the cloud cover by roughly 0.17-0.35%, about 5-10 times smaller than the zero-lag component.
It follows that the lag of the mixture will be 1/8 times (1/5 or 1/10) of the cycle which is between 1.8 and 3.5 months, fitting Sloan & Wolfendale's figure beautifully. The lag has the opposite sign because the two components have the opposite signs from one another, too. The major component - direct cosmoclimatology - reduces clouds during the solar maxima while the subleading component adds clouds near the solar maximum through an increased temperature and increased evaporation. If you want a numerical model behind the idea, cos(x) - cos(x+1/8)/5 = a cos(x-1/(8*5)b) where a,b are numbers close to one. 1/8 should have been 2.pi/8 but you surely get the idea and you can refine the equation. ;-)
There is no paradox here.
Note that you can't use the same argument to get rid of the 800-year-lag problem of the greenhouse effect. What's the difference between the two situations? The difference is that in cosmoclimatology, both the temperature and the cloud cover depend on external (solar, cosmic) perturbations that are primary and the strongest ones and such an effect doesn't contradict any data.
On the other hand, the temperature in Al Gore's graphs is claimed to be driven by CO2 itself, not by external "third" effects, and such a hypothesis is falsified by the temperature-CO2 lag. The lag either means that a "third" external quantity independently drives both the temperature and the CO2 (that don't interact with each other much) - which seems unlikely - or that the temperature's effect on the carbon dioxide is stronger than the opposite (greenhouse) effect. The latter option is almost certainly correct and the mechanism behind this relationship is called outgassing.
Forbush events
Finally, Sloan & Wolfendale complain that one more fingerprint is not seen. During the so-called Forbush events when the cosmic ray flux drops by 15-20%, they don't observe a huge enough decrease of the cloud cover.
However, the Forbush decreases only last for a few days while the "skeptics" determine the cloud cover from the weekly and monthly average data. The average weekly or monthly decrease of the cosmic ray flux is much smaller even during weeks or months with the Forbush decreases - because the latter only take two or three days - and the corresponding weekly or monthly decrease of the cloud cover is actually small enough that it can't be isolated from the noise.
To do it right and to see some signal, one would have to consider daily averages of the cloud cover data. And indeed, it was done by Harrison and Stephenson (2006) who have apparently confirmed the drop of clouds over Britain.
After reading Nir Shaviv's answer in detail, I seem to have a very clear opinion who knows what he is talking about and who knows it a little bit less. ;-) Unfortunately, Terry Sloan who happens to be a member of the LHC's ATLAS collaboration belongs to the latter category."
Edit: Spelling
Facebook
Twitter