3 ms·

There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible for temperature increases on Earth, Mars, Triton, Jupiter, and Pluto. While CO2 promoters p

There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible for temperature increases on Earth, Mars, Triton, Jupiter, and Pluto. While CO2 promoters point out the fact that solar irradiance changes are relatively small over time, they ignore that those same irradiance changes correspond to changes in solar magnetism, which means changes in cosmic ray incidence on planetary atmospheres. It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation. It's really not as clear cut as you have been taught.

Comevius 8y ago
"There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible" The solar constant in the past 400 years has varied less than 0.2 percent. "It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation." Not well known, because the research is still ongoing. Henrik Svensmark's research in a dust- and impurity-free atmosphere contributed to our understanding of aerosol microphysics, but others agree that the effect in the real, present-day atmosphere is very tiny. "Cosmic particles would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.” "If clouds were affected by cosmic rays, they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
- robotrout 8y ago
  From your quoted article. This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation This is a major effect, confirmed by your own article. I'm not certain why you linked it, since you are arguing against cosmic rays effecting cloud formation.
  - Comevius 8y ago
    I don't know why I linked it if you just end up making your very own conclusions. This paper is part of the CERN CLOUD project (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/ http://cloud.web.cern.ch/), an experiment trying to model our atmosphere to find out how much aerosols affect cloud formation and climate change. The conclusion so far is that cosmic rays can charge aerosol particles, and produce big enough particles to contribute to cloud forming. This represents less than 10% (several per cent) of the total particle formation from nucleation, a major, but subdominant role. Nucleation (the creation of big enough particles) itself plays a 43% role, the rest is particles already in the atmosphere. So cosmic rays is less than 10% of 43%. In any case if cosmic ray created aerosols would have such a large effect on clouds, so would other aerosols, such as those from air pollution. Clouds themselves play a less than 10% role in climate change, so it's like 10% of the 10% (cosmic ray nucleation) of 43% (nucleation), as I said a tiny effect. Clouds also not just trap heat, but reflect sunlight back, cooling the planet. As Ken Carslaw, one of the authors of the paper suggested: "It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important". https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-glob...
    - robotrout 8y ago
      Even if we were to stipulate his 10% number, that's 4.3% of cloud formation based on cosmic rays. Not insignificant. Your repeated contention that pollution aerosols are of equal magnitude to cosmic rays contribution requires a large helping of evidence to back it up, given the huge quantity of cosmic rays that impact the troposphere.
      - Comevius 8y ago
        "requires a large helping of evidence to back it up" Those are available at http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications. The experiments are started back in 2009. See Wikipedia for a simplified description of the results so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment Even if you think that cosmic rays are the bread and butter of cloud formation, the net effect would be global cooling. Clouds reflect more energy back into space than they do back to the ground. I would also like to mention that this cosmic ray climate change denialism started with the media misreporting Henrik Svensmark's paper. The Daily Express itself said "Winter is coming: Exploding stars could lead to ICE AGE warn scientists" https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weather-winter-is-coming-supernova-exploding-stars https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weathe.... Most of the media attention was on the sensationalist claim that cosmic rays are causing climate change, from which the various Facebook people extrapolated cosmic rays = global warming. Just so you know, this is the original source of this claim. The paper itself is about aerosol microphysics, but that's not as exciting as "Giant EXPLODING stars FREEZING Earth".
jimjimjim 8y ago
it really is.
- robotrout 8y ago
  I'm not certain how to respond to such a non-argument in such a biased forum as this one. I would respectfully just point out that on this subject, you are in a filter bubble, which you obviously have made no attempt to escape from.

Comevius 8y ago

"There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible" The solar constant in the past 400 years has varied less than 0.2 percent. "It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation." Not well known, because the research is still ongoing. Henrik Svensmark's research in a dust- and impurity-free atmosphere contributed to our understanding of aerosol microphysics, but others agree that the effect in the real, present-day atmosphere is very tiny. "Cosmic particles would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.” "If clouds were affected by cosmic rays, they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

robotrout 8y ago
From your quoted article. This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation This is a major effect, confirmed by your own article. I'm not certain why you linked it, since you are arguing against cosmic rays effecting cloud formation.
- Comevius 8y ago
  I don't know why I linked it if you just end up making your very own conclusions. This paper is part of the CERN CLOUD project (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/ http://cloud.web.cern.ch/), an experiment trying to model our atmosphere to find out how much aerosols affect cloud formation and climate change. The conclusion so far is that cosmic rays can charge aerosol particles, and produce big enough particles to contribute to cloud forming. This represents less than 10% (several per cent) of the total particle formation from nucleation, a major, but subdominant role. Nucleation (the creation of big enough particles) itself plays a 43% role, the rest is particles already in the atmosphere. So cosmic rays is less than 10% of 43%. In any case if cosmic ray created aerosols would have such a large effect on clouds, so would other aerosols, such as those from air pollution. Clouds themselves play a less than 10% role in climate change, so it's like 10% of the 10% (cosmic ray nucleation) of 43% (nucleation), as I said a tiny effect. Clouds also not just trap heat, but reflect sunlight back, cooling the planet. As Ken Carslaw, one of the authors of the paper suggested: "It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important". https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-glob...
  - robotrout 8y ago
    Even if we were to stipulate his 10% number, that's 4.3% of cloud formation based on cosmic rays. Not insignificant. Your repeated contention that pollution aerosols are of equal magnitude to cosmic rays contribution requires a large helping of evidence to back it up, given the huge quantity of cosmic rays that impact the troposphere.
    - Comevius 8y ago
      "requires a large helping of evidence to back it up" Those are available at http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications. The experiments are started back in 2009. See Wikipedia for a simplified description of the results so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment Even if you think that cosmic rays are the bread and butter of cloud formation, the net effect would be global cooling. Clouds reflect more energy back into space than they do back to the ground. I would also like to mention that this cosmic ray climate change denialism started with the media misreporting Henrik Svensmark's paper. The Daily Express itself said "Winter is coming: Exploding stars could lead to ICE AGE warn scientists" https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weather-winter-is-coming-supernova-exploding-stars https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weathe.... Most of the media attention was on the sensationalist claim that cosmic rays are causing climate change, from which the various Facebook people extrapolated cosmic rays = global warming. Just so you know, this is the original source of this claim. The paper itself is about aerosol microphysics, but that's not as exciting as "Giant EXPLODING stars FREEZING Earth".

jimjimjim 8y ago

it really is.

robotrout 8y ago
I'm not certain how to respond to such a non-argument in such a biased forum as this one. I would respectfully just point out that on this subject, you are in a filter bubble, which you obviously have made no attempt to escape from.