Yes you come to a debate forum not to debate but to make unilateral edicts and lol accuse others of being religious while you play the role of some infallible prophet. Good Gawd man give it a rest.
Your 2004 citation is long since superseded, and is dismissed. Your 2016 citation is based on an error of fact in the claim that solar output decreased during the 20th century. That citation also includes an unfounded smear, so it's fair to conclude it's not even offered in good faith. Here Shaviv makes short work of his critics. Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct And then there's Henrik Svensmark, whose 2017 paper was a true turning point. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into ... - Nature https://www.nature.com › ... › articles › article by H Svensmark · 2017 · Cited by 65 — Nature Communications volume 8, Article number: 2199 (2017) Cite this article ... To form a cloud droplet, water vapor needs to condense to aerosols ... chamber used in Svensmark et al., and shown schematically in Fig. 6. Here Svensmark reviews the state of the question. Force Majeure: The Sun's Role In Climate Change | The ... https://www.thegwpf.org › new-paper-solar-impact-on-... Nov 3, 2019 — The report, by Professor Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute, outlines some of the remarkable correlations between solar ...
Wow. Massive amounts of data exist from highly respected sources all over the world. What is measured is highly diverse, yet points to the same general conclusion that you deny. Just the coordincation of such a gigantic and diverse conspiracy would make it impossible to hide. And, YOU propose that one much just believe that the full range of sciences are just lying???
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/ One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of the Sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching Earth. A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a build-up of heat-trapping gases near the surface of the Earth, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.” https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ What Effect Do Solar Cycles Have on Earth’s Climate? According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity. For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
Here's your problem: You suck up ANYTHING that you think confirms your minority views without doing the least small bit of research concerning whether the articles you find have been debunked. In this case: So YOU preach the one scientist that might support YOUR personal beliefs while ignoring the several that have found his results seriously wanting.
I am at the point if you want to raise theories of global warming I am pleased to respond to them with sources that debunk them. To try suggest global warming is caused by the sun or cosmic rays is just another attempt to rationalize denial of global warming's causes to then justify doing nothing about it. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight In 1978, scientists began making the space-based measurements of total solar irradiance needed to understand the Sun's influence on Earth's climate. Space-based measurements are crucial for measuring the Sun's signal undistorted by the thick soup of gases and particles in our atmosphere. Before 1978, the Sun's brightness was generally considered to be constant. Measurements obtained over the past 33 years have helped scientists characterize solar irradiance changes and resulting changes in Earth's temperature. While incoming sunlight may have increased slightly over the last century, this increase accounts for less than 10 percent of the warming our world experienced over that time. Thus, the increase in total solar irradiance alone cannot account for all of the global warming observed since 1900. Scientists don't yet understand the full range of variance in energy output that the Sun is capable of. So it's crucial that scientists continue monitoring total solar irradiance as an important part NOAA's overall effort to advance scientific understanding of the Sun and Earth's climate system, and to provide beneficial services for society, such as early warnings whenever solar storms are directed at Earth.
In specific repudiation fo Svenmark: https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm The galactic cosmic ray (GCR) warming hypothesis is based on the premise that GCRs can "seed" clouds, and clouds reflect sunilight. So if there are fewer GCRs reaching Earth (because a strong solar magnetic field is deflecting them away), the hypothesis says there will be fewer clouds, more sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, and thus more global warming. So more solar activity means a stronger solar magnetic field, which means fewer GCRs reaching Earth, which hypothetically means fewer clouds and more warming. The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years. On the contrary, while GCRs are up, global temperatures are also way up, and temperatures in recent years reached record highs. and https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm which details the studies countering postulations about cosmic rays, etc.
Really? Did you overlook this? "First, since solar activity increased over the 20th century, it should be taken into account. Shepherd’s radiative forcing graph should be modified to be: Figure 3: Radiative forcing contributions (graph from Shepherd's article) with the following added. The beige is the real solar contribution over the 20th century. The green is the total forcing (natural + anthropogenic) we get once we include the real solar effect."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/ Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists. The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate deniers: that it is the Sun's changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up. The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming. The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all. Sunspot activity, which ebbs and flows on an 11-year cycle, decreases the cosmic ray flux by periodically increasing the solar wind – a stream of charged particles emitted by the sun. The solar wind's greater magnetic field deflects away some of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the Earth from elsewhere in the galaxy. So, if the theory linking cosmic rays and cloud formation is correct, increased sunspot activity could potentially reduce cloud cover. To try to quantify the effect that solar activity – whether directly or through cosmic rays – may have had on global temperatures in the 20th century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955. They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct effects of the sun. By comparing the small oscillations in cosmic ray rate and temperature with the overall trends in both since 1955, Sloan and Wolfendale found that less than 14 percent of the global warming seen during this period could have been caused by solar activity.
Nothing before 2017 is any longer relevant to Svensmark's work. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into ... - Nature https://www.nature.com › ... › articles › article by H Svensmark · 2017 · Cited by 65 — Nature Communications volume 8, Article number: 2199 (2017) Cite this article ... To form a cloud droplet, water vapor needs to condense to aerosols ... chamber used in Svensmark et al., and shown schematically in Fig. 6.
I cited some of numerous articles from scientists debunking the myths of cosmic rays and the sun causing global warming. A good summary of the myths can be found at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...-cant-explain-global-warming/?sh=63f6d62a15ab The cosmic rays and sun is causing global warming arguements were long since debunked. So I am not sure with due respect what Jack Hays is trying to pass as recent ideas that have not been debunked.
Nothing I said can be dismissed by saying the info I provided from scientists only applies to info prior to 2017. Come on.
Svensmark's 2017 paper was and remains a game changer. Here's why. Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth And you really should review this link to understand the state of the question. Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
I've told you multiple times believe whatever you wish. I don't have anything to prove. You can think of me however you wish. But just know when you abandon the subject to talk about me you have abandoned the subject.
I admire your persistence. It doesn't seem to matter how much data you present the faithful will always follow. I gave up on environmentalist watermelons ages ago. It's all just an effort to try and wedge socialism into politics through fear. I'm glad people like you are making arguments based on data verses just saying to hell with them. I suppose you do it because it offers a rational retort to the alarmism.
Again let us look at the forum rules http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms Linking to site that requires payment to access the content. Although not specifically included does come under the same heading as linking to a site that requires registration Find a free access site and link to that but be warned I expect all sites to conform to minimum academic standards to be even minimally credible
And it is one persons badly written opinion against multiple experts with sound academic research no contest
One is enough. “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]” ― Albert Einstein
Actually no I did not and please explain how its relevant to supporting the proposition that solar radiation/cosmic rays are such a significant contribution to global warming human related activities can be ignored. May I remind you no one denies solar flares, radiation or "cosmic rays" might warm the earth but not in the matter you describe. You have taken a number now please explain how it backs your postulation that solar radiation and cosmic energy not human activity is the significant or majority contributor to the different rate of heating measured. Thank you.
