A government funded and produced report for politicians based predicated on a predetermined conclusion.
There is no way to know how much warming is natural but fairly easy to conclude it is inline with the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Stozhkov et al., 2017A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.
Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate
When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.
When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.
And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
stjames1_53 (11-11-2018)
I read the portion of the article that was free. There is a false statement in the abstract about climate change's proposed mechanisms not being firmly grounded. Then, there is a
crazy prediction that "cooling is expected in the next few decades". It looks like they are predicting a negative shift in the global mean temp. of around 0.5 to 0.6 by the year 2024.
The galactic cosmic ray (GCR) scenario on global temperatures is hypothetical and not supported by observation. The theory behind it is weak.
How it works: Low solar activity means more cosmic rays striking Earth's atmosphere, more ionizing radiation, those charged particles attract molecules and grow in diameter by a factor of at least 1000, those larger particles become cloud condensing nuclei - attract water, more low clouds form that reflect sunlight away from the earth causing it to cool. High solar activity has the opposite affect causing earth to warm. GCR can be thought of as an enhancement of solar forcing.
There has been much research on the GCR hypothesis over the last 20 years so it has been taken seriously but there has always been much skepticism.
The skepticalscience.com site has an article, "What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change? (advanced explanation) that debunks the GCR hypothesis. They list 4
criteria that must be true if GCR is correlated with the measured global mean temp. trend:
1) Solar magnetic field must have a long term positive trend - there is no trend in solar magnetic flux, no trend in cosmic ray flux on earth, there is a +/-10% change in flux during the 11 year solar cycle
2) GCR flux on Earth must have a long term negative trend - see above, no significant cosmic ray trend from 1960 to 2011
3) Cosmic rays must successfully seed low level clouds increasing albedo (reflectivity) - there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between GCR flux and clouds (a typical result of an investigation)
4) Low-level cloud cover must have a long term negative trend - there is little evidence for GCR's and variations in the Earth's cloudiness
There are several detailed articles at the realclimate.org site that explain that there is no convincing evidence to support GCR's playing any
significant role in climate. I have read a few articles in support of this hypothesis so I have looked at both sides.
Last edited by skepticalmike; 11-11-2018 at 07:07 PM.
Last edited by Hoosier8; 11-11-2018 at 07:34 PM.
When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.
When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.
And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
I am trying to determine what Stozhkov has done. He says he has performed a spectral analysis of the temperature readings from 1901 to 2000 although the graph starts at 1880. The heavy
solid black line represents calculations using that analysis. He has identified 4 periodic sinusoidal waveforms with various periods, amplitudes and phases. The periods are 204.6 years, 69.3
years, 34.6, years, and 22 years and the amplitudes are 0.41 degrees C, 0.22 degrees C, 0.08 degrees C , and 0.09 degrees C respectively. From these waveforms he thinks that he can predict
the future. That is my interpretation. As he says, "summation of the periodicities for the future (after 2015) allows us to forecast the next few decades". This is not even remotely climate science.
This is pseudoscience.
Last edited by skepticalmike; 11-12-2018 at 02:43 AM.
Around 50% of the warming following the "Little Ice Age" until 1950 was caused by solar forcing and a reduction in volcanic activity. The other 50% was caused by greenhouse gases. Since 1950 close
to 100% of the warming is not natural. The mean global temperature only dropped by about 0.5 degrees C. max during the "Little Ice Age". Much of the cool weather was caused by volcanic eruptions
and much of the cooling was regional and did not last long. The thermolhaline circulation probably slowed down also as a result of melting ice from the Medieval Warming Anomaly. That would
have brought cooler weather to the NE U.S. and to Western Europe.