Finland & Japan Confirm Global Warming Data is not Supported

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,312
Reaction score
5,392
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
It's not my theory, dear.
Since it's not CERN's theory, it has to be your theory.

Can you to back up your claim with a link that CGR don't influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or don't directly affect clouds themselves?
You should have learned by now that unlike you and your cult, I can always back up what I say.

Benestad 2013

---
Variations in the annual mean of the galactic cosmic ray flux (GCR) are compared with annual variations in the most common meteorological variables: temperature, mean sea-level barometric pressure, and precipitation statistics. A multiple regression analysis was used to explore the potential for a GCR response on timescales longer than a year and to identify 'fingerprint' patterns in time and space associated with GCR as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The response pattern associated with GCR consisted of a negative temperature anomaly that was limited to parts of eastern Europe, and a weak anomaly in the sea-level pressure (SLP), but coincided with higher pressure over the Norwegian Sea. It had a similarity to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in the northern hemisphere and a wave train in the southern hemisphere. A set of Monte Carlo simulations nevertheless indicated that the weak amplitude of the global mean temperature response associated with GCR could easily be due to chance (p-value = 0.6), and there has been no trend in the GCR. Hence, there is little empirical evidence that links GCR to the recent global warming.
---

Erlykin et al 2013

---
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.
---
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,689
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It's not my theory, dear.
Since it's not CERN's theory, it has to be your theory.

Can you to back up your claim with a link that CGR don't influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or don't directly affect clouds themselves?
You should have learned by now that unlike you and your cult, I can always back up what I say.

Benestad 2013

---
Variations in the annual mean of the galactic cosmic ray flux (GCR) are compared with annual variations in the most common meteorological variables: temperature, mean sea-level barometric pressure, and precipitation statistics. A multiple regression analysis was used to explore the potential for a GCR response on timescales longer than a year and to identify 'fingerprint' patterns in time and space associated with GCR as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The response pattern associated with GCR consisted of a negative temperature anomaly that was limited to parts of eastern Europe, and a weak anomaly in the sea-level pressure (SLP), but coincided with higher pressure over the Norwegian Sea. It had a similarity to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in the northern hemisphere and a wave train in the southern hemisphere. A set of Monte Carlo simulations nevertheless indicated that the weak amplitude of the global mean temperature response associated with GCR could easily be due to chance (p-value = 0.6), and there has been no trend in the GCR. Hence, there is little empirical evidence that links GCR to the recent global warming.
---

Erlykin et al 2013

---
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.
---
You do realize that paper was from 2013, right?

Your backing stuff up consists of finding anything that confirms your bias. Current science be damned. :lol:
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,312
Reaction score
5,392
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
You do realize that paper was from 2013, right?
And? Do you have any newer evidence to the contrary? If so, quote it specifically. Don't just dishonbesty post a link and then pretend the link supports you, when it doesn't, like you did before.

Remember, CERN presented its findings in 2011. Those papers were a followup to the CERN findings, exploring whether cosmic rays had any effect on climate.

So, you haven't provided any evidence to contradict the established science or to support your own claims. That would be because you have no such evidence.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,689
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
You do realize that paper was from 2013, right?
And? Do you have any newer evidence to the contrary? If so, quote it specifically. Don't just dishonbesty post a link and then pretend the link supports you, when it doesn't, like you did before.

Remember, CERN presented its findings in 2011. Those papers were a followup to the CERN findings, exploring whether cosmic rays had any effect on climate.

So, you haven't provided any evidence to contradict the established science or to support your own claims. That would be because you have no such evidence.
Both of the links presented were more recent. Besides, it's something they are investigating. Don't you want investigation? Isn't more investigating good? Yeesh.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
It's not my theory, dear.
Since it's not CERN's theory, it has to be your theory.

Can you to back up your claim with a link that CGR don't influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or don't directly affect clouds themselves?
You should have learned by now that unlike you and your cult, I can always back up what I say.

Benestad 2013

---
Variations in the annual mean of the galactic cosmic ray flux (GCR) are compared with annual variations in the most common meteorological variables: temperature, mean sea-level barometric pressure, and precipitation statistics. A multiple regression analysis was used to explore the potential for a GCR response on timescales longer than a year and to identify 'fingerprint' patterns in time and space associated with GCR as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The response pattern associated with GCR consisted of a negative temperature anomaly that was limited to parts of eastern Europe, and a weak anomaly in the sea-level pressure (SLP), but coincided with higher pressure over the Norwegian Sea. It had a similarity to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in the northern hemisphere and a wave train in the southern hemisphere. A set of Monte Carlo simulations nevertheless indicated that the weak amplitude of the global mean temperature response associated with GCR could easily be due to chance (p-value = 0.6), and there has been no trend in the GCR. Hence, there is little empirical evidence that links GCR to the recent global warming.
---

Erlykin et al 2013

---
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.
---
What you did not take into account is that the authors of the paper cited in THIS OPost -- ACKNOWLEDGED that trying to tie Cosmic rad flux to ANYTHING is not really possible because over most of the earth's recent history (since H2O vapor became the dominant GHGas) CRadiation is fairly constant.. What this RECENT paper studied was proxy data from a geo-mag reversal event that's well preserved.. During THAT period of time --- YOU CAN deduce some effects.. Because it's virtually a CATASTROPHIC event...

Not that proxies are capable of PROVING anything, but you can make SOME deductions for known drastic changes in key variables...
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,312
Reaction score
5,392
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
What you did not take into account is that the authors of the paper cited in THIS OPost -- ACKNOWLEDGED that trying to tie Cosmic rad flux to ANYTHING is not really possible because over most of the earth's recent history (since H2O vapor became the dominant GHGas) CRadiation is fairly constant.. What this RECENT paper studied was proxy data from a geo-mag reversal event that's well preserved.. During THAT period of time --- YOU CAN deduce some effects.. Because it's virtually a CATASTROPHIC event...

Not that proxies are capable of PROVING anything, but you can make SOME deductions for known drastic changes in key variables...
So the papers says shifts in cosmic ray levels only effect climate if earth is undergoing a geomagnetic reversal.

Earth isn't undergoing a geomagnetic reversal, therefore small shifts in cosmic ray levels won't affect climate
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
This is a denial of the first law of thermodynamics. Where is this "additional energy" coming from that is "warming the Earth"?
This is a misunderstanding on your part. GHGases don't CONTRIBUTE "additional energy" -- they work to RETARD the "loss rate" of heat to the sky.. The kind of heat loss retardation that keeps you, both day and night from turning into a human popsicle.. Like a clear desert sky in Death Valley creates rather chilly night temperatures when the "solar heat source" is "sleeping".. And because this is not a "conduction/convection" type of thermo -- you have to use "radiative thermo" to calculate the "insulation value" of any GHGas layer...

In radiative thermo transfers -- the energy is ElectroMag radiation.. Deep IR light waves. That are largely NOT stored energy - just the absorption/re-transmission of IR frequencies coming UP from the surface that get "re-radiated" back to the ground.. Thus RETARDING the IRed surface losses..

It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration. CO2 is not uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere and we do not have enough CO2 measuring stations.
Since we now have sophisticated "space weather" satellites, you CAN measure the spatial distribution of CO2 over the planet surface.. And see the cyclical concentration migrations that we already knew existed as seasons change at latitudes..


t is not possible to trap heat. Denial of the second law of thermodynamics.
Quibbling over not much here.. The statement was written for 8th graders. RETARDING heat flow (which I already pointed out) doesn't violate ANY thermo laws..

Denial of the second law of thermodynamics... Heat only flows from hot to cold (not from cold to hot). It is not possible to trap heat.
HEAT only flows from hot to cold, but LIGHT (which is what InfraRed radiation is) is both absorbed and RE-Transmitted. And the resulting math is a simple subtraction of the "downward back radiation" from the updwelling surface heat loss.. Absolutely ENDS UP OBEYING all thermal laws, but RADIATIVE transfers are the 3rd type of heat flow in thermo and has a different MECHANISM than conduction/convective heat flow..


Can't go thru all the quibbles/misconceptions here.. Bottom line is that CO2 is very much a GHGas that works like ALL GHGases in the atmos.. And man MAY play a role that shouldn't ever be denied while you're wrapped in a labcoat "defending science".. We just KNOW that CO2 doesn't have the "superpowers" beyond basic physics and chemistry that have been attributed to it by some postulates about CATASTROPHIC theories about GW...

The earth is warming.. (says not much of anything given the EMPIRICAL numbers).. And man IS a factor.. But that FACTOR that has raised CO2 conc from 280ppm to 415ppm over 400 years or so isn't EVEN where the hype and pant pissing originates. All of THAT -- is exaggerations about "accelerated warming" or "trigger points" or "all positive feedbacks" in the surface energy budget that are above and beyond the BASIC power of CO2 to contribute to "RUNAWAY" GW....
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,803
Reaction score
15,546
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
So the papers says shifts in cosmic ray levels only effect climate if earth is undergoing a geomagnetic reversal.
No Squidward.. The only time you can "observe and estimate" those effects is during a RADICAL change in CRay flux... Like what happens DURING a geo-mag reversal.. That's why one paper says we looked and cant support any "cloud issues" and the other paper that used ancient proxies in a highly "perturbed" state can start to quantify the effect...

If the "mag shield" is fairly constant for "whole earth" effect on cloud cover, you cannot quantify the effect..

All that said.. EVEN IF -- cloud cover increases -- not all atmos scientists are gonna agree on the effect on surface temp or weather.. THIS PAPER (Sciencedaily) simply says that WEATHER got more violent. So I don't waste a lot of time HOPING that this REPLACES basic GHGas theory or anything like that..

You know how I feel about MOST ANY "ancient proxies" dis-abilities to provide "whole earth" measurements...
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
865
Points
315
Don’t worry, they want you dead anyway. They still want us to live likes it’s 5000 BC while they sail their huge fossil fuel yachts to climate conferences.


“During the last hundred years, the temperature increased by about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”. This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers’ theory: “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just-published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily.

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal: Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate

These findings are extremely significant in that both groups have identified the ‘umbrella effect’ as the prime driver of climate warming rather than anthropogenic (human) factors.
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming



CLAIM
During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.

VERDICT



SOURCE: Jyrki Kauppinen, Paul Joseph Watson, Pekka Malmi, Fox News, Sky News Australia, Summit.news, Zero Hedge, 11 July 2019
DETAILS
Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.


[.............]
`
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top