The second graph shows how temperature and cosmic rays match up if you take out some things until they match up.
Yesā¦but as I said, it is the concept I am displaying, not trying to proven anything.
Here is a graph showing a very strong correlation:
5 Likes
Correlation coefficient looks good to meā¦
1 Like
Hereās an even stronger correlation with R^2=0.999
The tylervigen.com site has some interesting absurd correlations. Like Deaths due to cancer on Thursdays
correlates with Lawyers in Tennessee:
Itās worth checking out, especially for teachers wanting examples to show students that correlation is not the same as causation.
3 Likes
Fortunately, others have done that for you.
My understanding is that this hypothesis has been fairly heavily examined in the wider climate science community. The mechanism you describe above is functionally correct in a theoretical sense - cosmic rays DO cause increased cloud buildup and contribute to cooling the earth. However, in a real-life situation, only a tiny proportion of ions created by cosmic ray bombardment are of suitable side to perform cloud seeding. The impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation is dwarfed by the impact of things like airborne dust. The cosmic ray thing is indeed a legitimate impact on global temperature, but itās impact is tiny compared to AGW etc. Itās really only Svensmark who is still pushing his own private barrow trying to say cosmic rays are the dominant climatic influence. The wider scientific community have tested his theories and found them massively overstated.
And as Iāve mentioned in previous posts, itās profoundly misleading to keep posting global temperature graphs that neglect the past 10 or so years of record warming (especially given that in the record hot years of 2016/7 there was also a record high level of cosmic rays, which debunked the whole ācosmic rays will cool the worldā theory pretty comprehensively). Why do you keep posting obsolete and incomplete graphs in here? Thereās plenty of more up-to-date data available. The past 10 years has been blow-the-roof-off-the-curve hot, as predicted by accepted AGW science. If your climate hypothesis doesnāt take this into account, your climate hypothesis is worthless. especially when you insist on sourcing your graphs from explicitly denialist websites like Joanne Novaās, run by biologists who have no climate science qualifications whatsoever but who do have a sideline in writing books for the IPA and hanging around with Christopher frigging Monckton. So that makes me doubt that even your temperature graph is honest - she probably uses the same dodgy uncorrected REMSS data set that you posted in here previously.
If you want to read a bit of the ACTUAL scientific investigation of the whole climate/cosmic rays issue, have a look at this for a starter, and maybe in future try to be less credulous about spouting stuff from unqualified cranks,
1 Like
Bomber1408 is a troll.
Just as a point of interest: who here has reviewed raw data associated with determinations (either way) on the topic of anthropogenic climate change?
REMSS argue for their own commercial reasons that worldwide satellite raw data is the only data that gives the true picture, but admit that it can be presented to justify opposite claims.
Many in Europe argue that as there is actually little raw data from before the last 100 years or so, and that the ādataā is analysis of core samples and other geographical changes documented in history, so compounded errors could be large.
The only clear picture, mentioned again and again by @benfti and others is the 97% of scientists are in broad agreement on climate change and global warming.
I aināt no big city lawyerā¦
THave read this article HM, seems like a well balanced piece thats neither here nor there with any conclusions in regard to solar activity / cosmic rays and climate.
Once again I repeat, I am no scientist ( or a troll IMO ) and I am COMPLETELY agnostic to any causes of climate change. Thats means I am not certain about anything. And I need to be very certain before backing any theory in and I certainly donāt believe whats written in the media !
Being an EFC supporter, experience has bourne out to me many times in the last 5 years that the truth is out there, just donāt look for it to be told by politicans or the MSM.
I do data analysis as part of my job role and will always believe historical data comparions carry more weight than data models, where the parameters and data is tweakable. In a nut shell, thats why I am very interested in solar activity and climateā¦cause I can see comparisons to actual historical data.
To be quite frank, some of the things I have read regarding a lengthy Grand Solar Minimumsā impacts on the inhabitants of this earth, scares the absolute ā ā ā ā out of me.
What is the historical data on solar and cosmic rays?
How far does it go back?
Really?
You seem very determined to push the sun as culprit thing pretty hard.
Reckon you have a very solid opinion there.
Either that or you are trolling.
1 Like
I believe they have been counting solar spots since the invention of the telescope ( say 16th century ). My understanding is that more complex /and detailed analysis has only happened since the early to mid twentith century.
Only so much as it is not brought up in the main stream conversations around climate change. I find it (solar activity based climate change) fasinating, but am not convinced on any one reason for CC at this stage. If anything, more inclined to think there could be more than one reason.
I am not trollingā¦just adding to the conversation around climate change that has not be covered previously in this thread.
If youāre seriously interested in actually learning about climate and climate change in an in-depth way, youāre going the wrong way about it. Cos so far, from an outsider, it seems like your strategy is ātrawl a whole bunch of dubious climate denialist websites, repost their dodgy graphs here uncritically, wait for someone to critique them, and then claim to be just asking in the spirit of honest inquiry before moving on to the next conspiracy theory without actually ever seeming to engage with mainstream scienceā
That aināt a strategy thatās going to lead you to any truths.
Since you claim to distrust mainstream media and politicians on this sort of thing, you might want to go to the source. You can actually download the complete Yale lecture course on climate science for free, at the link below (itās only the undergrad course, but surely thatāll do you for starters).
https://oyc.yale.edu/geology-and-geophysics/gg-140
Itās always worth getting a grounding in the basics of a field before you start to embrace anyone who claims that their brave maverick thinking will revolutionise it, or that its mainstream consensus is entirely wrong. Gives you a more robust bullshit filter.
As for grand solar minima, well, yeah, they could be scary, but they have happened many times in recorded history and theyāre certainly unpleasant for those living in marginal conditions at the time, but in terms of magnitude and duration, both the rate and magnitude of the current warming makes them look like blips. They can certainly cause localised food crises etc, but they aināt going to end ecosystems in a way that lasts for a geological timescale. I know Iāve posted the below image before, but Iāll do it again. It gives real perspective on stuff like the Medieval Warm Period etc vs the current crisis.
1 Like
NASA has a probe literally in the outer corona of the sun learning heaps about it right now as we speak
1 Like
Sunspots were first viewed in 1610. Early astronomers like Galileo and Schiener thought them be little satellites rotating around the sun and Kepler thought they were floating dross on the Suns surface.
As I have said, CSIRO have done a great volume of work on the effect of solar activity on weather patterns, nothing to say they effect climate change though.
1 Like
P.S. Click on the image to see the full (very tall) version).
And exactly which half is that?
The top half, the lower half, the inside half, the outside half?
It certainly isnāt the half near Mackay or Airle Beach unless it died in the last 2 months.
Where do you get this crap from?
The GBR dies every time the funding for the āscientistsā is coming up for renewal.
It has the same credibility and happens as often as THE ARCTIC WILL BE ICE FREE by (fill in a date)
Civilisation, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
H.L.Mencken
1 Like