EnviroLink Forum

Ah calling me a genius. I think your being sarcastic I don't think the same thing you think so I must be thick that's the point. Isn't you that has a hissy fit and crys to the moderators if you aren't shown due respect?

I am asking you the question; show me the mechanism; you basically admit that it has not been demonstrated yet but if I wait this CERN might confirm it. You then ask me to prove a negative. and throw in an attempt at sarcasm.

This conversation does not seem very productive.

But its fun! Its like getting headshots playing call of duty the only frustrating thing is the noob doesn't know he's been shot.

Your first and last paragraphs are not necessary.

The mechanism has been proven, and both the co2 mechanism and the cosmic ray mechanism have been proven to have an impact. It is just a question of which one is stronger than the other.

Snowy

The first and last paragraphs are like the salt and pepper of my post. I hate Wayne he said what I would say only better written with more detail and with references.

As to why we are still talking to you.

That's the same reason why I am still talking to you

Not really, as we have a lot of references on the strength of the CO2 forcing and none on the cosmic rays, in fact the cosmic rays seem to just be a slight multiplier given your evidence.

Not nearly as much so as asking someone for negative proof.

I had trouble getting a reference copy from the NASA site, but I found one that was already copied.

No, they would not be lost in anything if they were, in fact, drivers. Volcanic eruptions are localized events, yet they impact the climate around the world. You are supporting one hypothesis and condemning another based solely on your personal beliefs and nothing else. There is no supporting evidence for the mechanisms and the hypotheses have garnered little interest from those who are experts in the fields. It is the experts you usually can give the best determination of the validity of an hypothesis.

The Cosmic Rays have been shown observationally to multiply the forcing of the 11 year solar cycle by a factor of 5 to 7. That is a significant impact from GCRs.

That is how science progresses actually, through falsification and through Paradigm shifts.

And the overall yearly trend in Cosmic Rays from ionization chambers show a record low in ionization in 1992 by a large margin.



Source: Svensmark and Marsh 2000

Funny that you mention volcanoes.

The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo confirmed negative feedback in the climate system, making it unlikely that CO2 was the dominant cause of the 20th Century warming, since it would be too small to explain it, and thus another factor is needed to explain the warming.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... natubo.pdf

We determine the volcano climate sensitivity l and
response time t for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, using
observational measurements of the temperature anomalies
of the lower troposphere, measurements of the long
wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical density.
Using standard linear response theory we find l = 0.15 ±
0.06 K/(W/m2), which implies a negative feedback of

1.4 (+0.7,
1.6). The intrinsic response time is t = 6.8 ±
1.5 months. Both results are contrary to a paradigm that
involves long response times and positive feedback.

With responses and corrections here:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... 023829.pdf

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... 023695.pdf

No, they have not

Rather odd the chart in the paper also shows the measurements from the neutron monitors which are still in use rather than the ionization chambers which which stopped in the early 1990s. The neutron monitors do not show the same massive drop as the chambers.

No, they have not

Really?

Shaviv 2005

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, though without pointing to which one.