Restoring the Scientific Method and Saving Civilization

Interesting, since the post directly refuted you and exposed your lack of familiarity with the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

 

Link? because from experience what you believe is rebuttal is not what I see

 

Here it is again. It directly refuted your objection in that thread and exposed your lack of familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature.
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar ...

AGU Journals
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › full


by NJ Shaviv · 2008 · Cited by 55 — In other words, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative imbalance associated with the solar cycle. ... Shaviv, 2002, 2003; ...

 

"Strawman" does not mean "something you do not agree with".

 

No it means you setting up a false premise that is easier to attack than the truth

 

Hmmmm I remember replying saying that Shaviv is using Shaviv to justify Shaviv - a point you seem to have no answer for.
The paper itself is highly speculative with little to no data support for many of the hypotheses
A critique of the 2012 paper by Shaviv and Ziskin that uses the suppositions in your cited paper as a reference
https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-ziskin-shaviv.html

it analyses in greater depth what I had already identified - the cited values were mostly speculative

Hmmmm a nice detailed critique of Shaviv’s work on “Cosmic rays”
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html

 

--Your objections were to question how Shaviv proposed to test his hypothesis and where was the research on the topic. The linked paper, of course, answered both objections. Testifying in 2019, Shaviv of course drew on his prior work, 2008, to make his case.
--I note the author of the SkepticalScience critique of the 2012 paper avoided taking his case to the peer-reviewed literature. I suspect he feared embarrassment.
--The cosmic rays critique is from 2004 and has been superseded by several generations of newer research. You're not keeping up with the material.
--You are left with no counter to Shaviv's 2019 presentation, and his point that the IPCC has significantly underestimated solar climate influence.

 

Ok WHERE in the paper did it “answer the questions” specifics please

Skeptical science does not have to take anything to peer review it is what it is - a more academic version of Whatsupmybutt. Only dealing in facts

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...lectroverse-global-warming-policy-foundation/

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.p...tenable conclusions, particularly with regard
Oops no correlation
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818119305806

 

Your question: "How does he propose to do that? Where is the research supporting that?"
was at #564 in the thread:
Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

The 2008 paper answers both questions simply by its existence. He proposed to do that (in fact had already done that) by using the oceans as a calorimeter. His own work was the research supporting his claim.
SkepticalScience is a propaganda outlet.

 

You're still behind.
The Phanerozoic climate
Shaviv, N. J., Svensmark, H. & Veizer, J., 2023, In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1519, p. 7-19
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

A persistent influence of supernovae on biodiversity over the Phanerozoic
Svensmark, H., 2023, In: Ecology and Evolution. 13, 3, 9 p., e9898.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

This was the ground-breaker.
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

 

Thanks for the dodge

 

I answered your question fully and directly. Your claim of a "dodge" is laughable.

 

Well, I have to agree that the whole "9X% of scientist agree" is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) and I wish people would stop using it. On the other hand saying that "9X% of climatologists" agree is valid, it is, after all, their field of study so they are the authority.

 

Marginal is what this stuff is. Surveys sent = 10929. Responses = 2780, 25.44%. "Independently confirmed climate experts" = 153. 151 of which "indicated" that the cause is CO2 ppm increases causation presumably do to fossil fuel oxidation. If you're keeping track, we're down to 151 / 10929 = 1.3816%. And then we have the final assertion that 100% of an unknown quantity of these who are the absolute best experts are in "100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity."

Science is not consensus and consensus is not science. Which part of this do you people not understand?

 

No you dodged

I asked for specific instances from within the paper itself and you replied with a vague direction to another post which itself just made the claim again without providing specifics

 

That is a falsehood. You never asked for "specific instances from within the paper." As a boy I was taught that honesty is the best policy and I have tried to live by that. I wish more people did.
Your question: "How does he propose to do that? Where is the research supporting that?"
was at #564 in the thread:
Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...
The 2008 paper answers both questions simply by its existence. He proposed to do that (in fact had already done that) by using the oceans as a calorimeter. His own work was the research supporting his claim.

 

And again I ask for specifics ie where is the research, not the assumptions/ speculations/ theorisation but the outcome measured research backing his hypothesis on caloric measurements? This has been the biggest hurdle he has faced with scientific acceptance - he does not have the real world researched and verified facts

 

The paper is quite lengthy and technical. Feel free to follow the link.

Abstract
[1] Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one. . . .

[71] One possible mechanism to the large heat fluxes is that of CRF modulation [Ney, 1959; Dickinson, 1975; Svensmark, 1998]. The CRF, which inversely follows the solar activity variations, is the dominant source of tropospheric ionization. Although the idea has several pros and cons [Carslaw et al., 2002], the current supporting body of evidence is increasing steadily, though not without fierce critique. This includes correlations between CRF variations and cloud cover [Svensmark, 1998; Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b], correlations between non-solar CRF variations and temperature over geological timescales [Shaviv, 2002, 2003; Shaviv and Veizer, 2003], as well as experimental results showing that the formation of small condensation nuclei (CNs) could be bottlenecked by the number density of atmospheric ions [Harrison and Aplin, 2001; Eichkorn et al., 2002; Svensmark et al., 2006]. It is yet to be proven, however, that the formation rate of small CNs is an important factor in determining the overall production rate of the large cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) required for cloud condensation [Carslaw et al., 2002].

[72] Another interesting point to note is that the solar cycle induced variations in low-altitude cloud cover [Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b], presumably from CRF modulation over the oceans (where CCNs are most likely to be a bottleneck), give rise to a radiative imbalance which can be estimated [Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a; Shaviv, 2005] to be of order 1.1 ± 0.3 W/m2 over the past two cycles. Together, with the TSI variations, we find that the ratio between the cloud + TSI variations compared with the change in the solar constant is:

After comparing with equation (21), we can conclude that the heat flux going into the oceans is consistent with the apparent variations in the low-altitude clouds. See also Figure 7.
[73] In summary, we find clear evidence indicating that the total flux entering the oceans in response to the solar cycle is about an order of magnitude larger than the globally averaged irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m2. The sheer size of the heat flux, and the lack of any phase lag between the flux and the driving force further implies that it cannot be part of an atmospheric feedback and very unlikely to be part of a coupled atmosphere-ocean oscillation mode. It must therefore be the manifestation of real variations in the global radiative forcing. . . . .

Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar ...

AGU Journals
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › full


by NJ Shaviv · 2008 · Cited by 55 — In other words, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative imbalance associated with the solar cycle. ... Shaviv, 2002, 2003; ...

Meanwhile, the mechanism that was not identified in 2008 was later identified in 2017. This paper also is technical and lengthy.

Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Abstract
Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under atmospheric conditions the growth from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity.

 

For what was touted as a definitive research paper there are an awful lot of “could be maybe, possibly in there. That paper has been cited by 55 other papers/ sites so I followed through to see how it was used within the broader literature

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818122001953?pes=vor
This was one of the few papers that written by mainstream scientists and not crackpot loons like Nicola Scaffetta and Willy Soon

I am leaving this here as I need a break

 

I note that you skipped over the second linked paper that sorted out the uncertainties presented in the first.

 

No I had other things to do - I will get to it tomorrow

As I said my life does not revolve round answering your questions

 

As you wish.

 

My first question is “how does this validate the first paper?”

 

It identifies the mechanism that was suggested but not conclusively identified in the first paper. Here's Shaviv's explanation.
Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth

Our new results published today in nature communications provide the last piece of a long studied puzzle. We finally found the actual physical mechanism linking between atmospheric ionization and the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Thus, we now understand the complete physical picture linking solar activity and our galactic environment (which govern the flux of cosmic rays ionizing the atmosphere) to climate here on Earth through changes in the cloud characteristics. . . .