Restoring the Scientific Method and Saving Civilization

So doesn’t actually validate the paper at all but adds to speculation. Now second question about this - where are the increased numbers of supernovae to account for the increased global temps? Or maybe we are moving into a “hot region” of space?

 

No, the second paper supplies the mechanism hypothesized in the first.
And in this view, the GCR's generated by supernovae increase cloud cover and lower global temperature.
Solar wind blocks the GCR's and leads to temperature increase.
I suggest you review the science.

 

I suggest you THINK about this. Because what has failed to be shown is that the current temperature increase is caused by any change in cosmic rays. We have already known there is an effect from solar activity and that is adding to the increased temps of the last couple of years but does not explain the cumulative rise in temperatures

 

Lols! I know I know - don’t confuse bad journalism with good science but this guy is just making me laugh

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...-cant-explain-global-warming/?sh=3cb45d2115ab

 

Wow, yet another physics denier got to go on TV and brag about his denial with zero opposing views represented.

Typical.

And that proves what exactly?

 

Solar wind disrupting GCR flow. Shaviv never denied all anthropogenic influence; indeed he suggests that accounts for about half of 20th century warming. But his conclusion that the other half is solar-derived has huge implications for both climate sensitivity and, in consequence, projected temperature. His conclusion? The Kyoto temperature target is attainable with few or no changes to the status quo.

 

That won't satisfy those that want to "disrupt" affluent life styles.

 

Crushed by Shaviv.
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

An article interviewing me was removed yesterday from forbes. Instead, they published an article by Meteorologist Prof. Marshall Shepherd that claims that the sun has no effect on climate. That article, however, falls to the same pitfalls that pointed out on my blog yesterday.

Specifically, why are Shepherd’s arguments faulty? Although I addressed them yesterday, here they are brought again more explicitly and with figures.

 

And “those people” are???
Specifics please

 

He is lying about it claiming the sun has “no effect” on climate. No scientist claims that and you want me to read past that clear lie to the rest of the article?

The Forbes article includes this graph


The sun clearly has an effect on climate but is not causing THIS a current global warming. A fact that is clearly shown in the Forbes article and which then goes on to WHY we know the sun is not causing the current global warming

Meanwhile Shaviv is reduced to using his own disputed data to “verify” his claims and even there he is playing a shell game.

I am wondering if you can spot the where the pea under the shell is


Hint he has actually hidden more than one and they are cherries not peas

 

Yerrrrsss and the solar wind has disrupted GCR flow for billions of years. What has changed NOW to explain his hypothesis?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...l correlation,cosmic rays and cloud formation

 

From your link: "It is more useful to "cut to the chase" on why the Sun doesn't explain climate warming."
Shaviv has him pegged.
TSI is not important to Shaviv's argument.
I'm sure you can understand the material if you give it your best effort.

 

The solar wind is not constant. And the 2013 work is obsolete.

 

Really? Want to prove that stipulation?

 

Yep! You missed the cherries! Hint exactly what is Shaviv claiming?

 

Global solar wind variations over the last four centuries

Nature Journal
https://www.nature.com › scientific reports › articles


by MJ Owens · 2017 · Cited by 58 — For ~1750–2013, global VRECON shows a strong solar cycle variation, with values around 600 km/s and short dips to approximately 450 km/s at ...


Solar Wind Variations - Solar Physics - NASA

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics (.gov)
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov › SolarWind


The solar wind is not uniform. Although it is always directed away from the Sun, it changes speed and carries with it magnetic clouds, interacting regions ...

 

There are no cherries. You continue to dodge.

 

Yeah there are - and they are blindingly obvious which is why Shaviv is hardly mentioned by anyone anywhere. Scientists are being polite in not calling him a crackpot liar. But I would like you to try and see what I see. Lay out for me the chain of events that supposedly are causing global warming according to him.

 

Thanks for providing proof of my contention that there has not been an appreciable change in solar wind

 

What Shaviv and Svensmark are ignoring is this

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

 

Actually, they show the opposite.

 

They ignore TSI because it's not important to their argument.

 

". . . 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?

1. When the sun has gusts in the solar wind, it causes several day long reductions in the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, called Forbush decreases. We see as a response changes in the aerosols and in cloud properties, just as expected. See references 4 & 5 below.
2. There are large cosmic ray flux variations over geological time scales that are not related to solar activity but instead to our location in the Milky Way and the changing galactic environment. You can reconstruct the cosmic ray flux using meteorites and find that the 7 ice-age epochs over the past 1 billion years all appeared when the cosmic ray flux was high (see references 6 & 7 below). On a bit shorter time scales, the vertical motion of the solar system clearly manifests itself as a 32 million year oscillations in the temperature (15 periods over the past half billion years! See reference 8 below). Namely, there are very clear indications that independent variations in the cosmic ray flux affect the climate.
3. Cloud cover varies over the 11 year solar cycle (e.g., reference 9 below). This by itself is not proof that the link is through cosmic rays, since there are several things that change with the solar cycle. However, one particularly interesting aspect is that the cloud cover variation are asymmetrical between odd and even cycles, just as cosmic rays are, and unlike other solar related variables that are blind to the fact that the real cycle is 22 years (Polarity returns back to the same state after two switches, hence, 22 years. The asymmetry arises from the fact that cosmic rays are primarily positive particles, and the sun is rotating such that there is a clear helicity to the field configuration).
4. There are several experimental results showing that ions increase the nucleation and formation of a few nm sized aerosols and increase the survival of those aerosols as they grow to become 50 nm sized cloud condensation nuclei. A few examples are given in references 10-13. . . . "

Forbes censored an interview with me

A few days ago I was interviewed by Doron Levin, for an article to appear online on forbes.com. After having seen a draft (to make sure that I am quoted correctly), I told him good luck with getting it published, as I doubted it will. Why? Because a year ago I was interviewed by a reporter working for Bloomberg, while the cities of San Francisco and Oakland were deliberating a climate change lawsuit against Exxon-Mobil (which the latter won!), only to find out that their editorial board decided that it is inappropriate to publish an interview with a heretic like me. Doron’s reply was to assure me that Forbes’ current model of the publication online allows relative freedom with “relatively little interference from editors”. Yeah Sure.