blizzard1024 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 See link below. Henrik Svensmark's latest. Interesting. This could help explain some of what is going on with our climate system. http://bit.ly/1fzx7zu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 If a link exists, the question after this is what the radiative forcing from Cosmic Rays would be via a decrease in low cloud cover? Some studies have tried to quantify it as 1-2 w/m^2 which is comparable to the net anthropogenic forcing since 1750. Unfortunately, because so much research has gone into the anthropogenic forcing from CO2 and other well mixed Greenhouse Gases, our understanding of the anthropogenic forcing from Greenhouse Gases is fairly high. However, our understanding of natural solar forcings still remains very poor. More research should be invested in the natural forcing from the sun over the 20th Century. From Fastrup et al. 2000. This is the state of our understanding on the sun and it's impacts on Climate Change. In fact, because not enough research has gone into solar influences on climate, our understanding of indirect solar influences is so poor that we can't even constrain it, since the radiative forcing is completely unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 See link below. Henrik Svensmark's latest. Interesting. This could help explain some of what is going on with our climate system. http://bit.ly/1fzx7zu Did you actually read the paper behind the article you linked to? If so, it is hard to see what anybody would get excited about. Svensmark and his team didn't even try to emulate real-world atmospheric conditions. The temperature in their chamber was 296 K (23 C or 73 F), the pressure was "a few Pa above atmospheric pressure", and the UV lamps ran continuously. Room temperature, above sea-level pressure, and 24 hour a day UV - yeah, that's a good simulation of upper tropospheric conditions. Maybe Svensmark hasn't heard of the diurnal cycle - or denies its existence. And the cherry on the sundae of their experiments is that they had to add two gamma radiation sources to the natural GCR flux in order to see the desired effect because the results from GCR flux alone matched the standard models and not their hypothesis. There are many chemical reactions that can be observed at high pressure, temperature, and energy conditions but not at lower pressure, temperature and energy. From everything I read in the paper that seems to be the case here. If Svensmark runs his experiments again at upper tropospheric pressure, temperatures, diurnal energy levels, and GCR flux and gets the same results - then I'll be impressed. Until then it's just another straw for pseudo-skeptics to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted September 5, 2013 Author Share Posted September 5, 2013 Did you actually read the paper behind the article you linked to? If so, it is hard to see what anybody would get excited about. Svensmark and his team didn't even try to emulate real-world atmospheric conditions. The temperature in their chamber was 296 K (23 C or 73 F), the pressure was "a few Pa above atmospheric pressure", and the UV lamps ran continuously. Room temperature, above sea-level pressure, and 24 hour a day UV - yeah, that's a good simulation of upper tropospheric conditions. Maybe Svensmark hasn't heard of the diurnal cycle - or denies its existence. And the cherry on the sundae of their experiments is that they had to add two gamma radiation sources to the natural GCR flux in order to see the desired effect because the results from GCR flux alone matched the standard models and not their hypothesis. There are many chemical reactions that can be observed at high pressure, temperature, and energy conditions but not at lower pressure, temperature and energy. From everything I read in the paper that seems to be the case here. If Svensmark runs his experiments again at upper tropospheric pressure, temperatures, diurnal energy levels, and GCR flux and gets the same results - then I'll be impressed. Until then it's just another straw for pseudo-skeptics to grasp. Thanks. I am skeptical of this cosmic ray stuff too. I couldn't find the paper link at the time. Anyway, what is the point of your last sentence" straw for pseudo-skeptics to grasp." ??? Why are so many on this forum so antagonistic including you? Calling someone a skeptic or denier is pretty arrogant. I am trying to learn about the climate system and wade through all the politics and frankly people on the "CO2 drives everything camp" seem to be pretty close minded when it comes to new ideas about the climate system. I don't think Svensmark really cares about what CO2 is doing. He is trying to see if there is a connection with cosmic rays and climate. I see nothing wrong with his research attempts but I too am skeptical and we all should be with all new science, especially when dealing with weather and climate. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Did you actually read the paper behind the article you linked to? If so, it is hard to see what anybody would get excited about. Svensmark and his team didn't even try to emulate real-world atmospheric conditions. The temperature in their chamber was 296 K (23 C or 73 F), the pressure was "a few Pa above atmospheric pressure", and the UV lamps ran continuously. Room temperature, above sea-level pressure, and 24 hour a day UV - yeah, that's a good simulation of upper tropospheric conditions. Maybe Svensmark hasn't heard of the diurnal cycle - or denies its existence. And the cherry on the sundae of their experiments is that they had to add two gamma radiation sources to the natural GCR flux in order to see the desired effect because the results from GCR flux alone matched the standard models and not their hypothesis. There are many chemical reactions that can be observed at high pressure, temperature, and energy conditions but not at lower pressure, temperature and energy. From everything I read in the paper that seems to be the case here. If Svensmark runs his experiments again at upper tropospheric pressure, temperatures, diurnal energy levels, and GCR flux and gets the same results - then I'll be impressed. Until then it's just another straw for pseudo-skeptics to grasp. Great post Phil....Top of your game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeffsvilleWx Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So he's studying cosmic effects on earth's climate by studying an artificial, dissimilar climate? Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Thanks. I am skeptical of this cosmic ray stuff too. I couldn't find the paper link at the time. Anyway, what is the point of your last sentence" straw for pseudo-skeptics to grasp." ??? Why are so many on this forum so antagonistic including you? Calling someone a skeptic or denier is pretty arrogant. I am trying to learn about the climate system and wade through all the politics and frankly people on the "CO2 drives everything camp" seem to be pretty close minded when it comes to new ideas about the climate system. I don't think Svensmark really cares about what CO2 is doing. He is trying to see if there is a connection with cosmic rays and climate. I see nothing wrong with his research attempts but I too am skeptical and we all should be with all new science, especially when dealing with weather and climate. thanks. That's exactly what skeptics do with these papers. These papers don't come remotely close to demonstrating a causal relationship between cosmic rays and climate and there are many papers demonstrating that such a causal relationship does not exist. And yet skeptics have seized upon it as proof that GCRs cause clouds. WUWT (which is probably where you found this article) has already declared that this paper refutes the entire 5th IPCC report. This is the very definition of 'grasping at straws.' Phillip was describing the situation accurately. Your faux-outrage is merely demonstrative of your back-handed attempt to make these studies look legitimate. If there was the slightest doubt that GCRs affect climate, the last 10 years have erased it. GCRs remain at record highs which should be forming clouds and causing major cooling. Instead, we have continued to warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 LOL.....what a class A a$$hole! Phillip said nothing personal.. he simply correctly pointed out that this paper proves nothing and that deniers are grasping at straws pretending that it does. He didn't get personal, but you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Phillip said nothing personal.. he simply correctly pointed out that this paper proves nothing and that deniers are grasping at straws pretending that it does. He didn't get personal, but you have. You're right Drew....I fixed my post...my bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Great post Phil....Top of your game! Aw, shucks - I'm blushing. I know you're sincere since it takes a Class A a$$hole to spot a Class A a$$hole. Do those knee-jerk reactions bother you much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 You love the reaction! First sentence condescension is your schtick. Does subtle belittlement of others really pay off in improving one's self worth?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 You love the reaction! First sentence condescension is your schtick. Does subtle belittlement of others really pay off in improving one's self worth?? To stay on topic - was I wrong in my post about the paper behind the OP? If so, please point out my errors and help me (and others) better understand the relationship between GCRs and climate. If I was correct - then how do your personal attacks, name-calling and sarcasm contribute in any positive way to a technical discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 To stay on topic -was I wrong in my post about the paper behind the OP? If so, please point out my errors and help me (and others) better understand the relationship between GCRs and climate. If I was correct - then how do your personal attacks, name-calling and sarcasm contribute in any positive way to a technical discussion? Whether you were wrong or right was not the basis of my, admittedly flippant, reaction. It was/is the way you present your opinion to those that have a slightly different take, an already firmly established (in your eye) opinion, or are maybe young and trying to learn. It takes a bit of introspection to see that many from the outside are going to perceive the type of responses you present as nothing but pure arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 his work has been pretty thoroughly refuted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm Does the above refutation include the latest paper that the OP linked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f2tornado Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Until then it's just another straw for pseudo-skeptics to grasp. I agree with the others who commented negatively to this line. Some "pseudo-skeptics" could just as easily apply the same line to "pseudo-alarmists" who have come up with every excuse in the book to explain why their models have failed to predict the recent 10-15 year pause in warming despite having "settled science". You otherwise did a great job applying critical thought toward harpooning that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.