Global Warming & Solar Flares · Henrik Svensmark · Astro Physicist · DTU Space · NON-EVENT '22
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 гру 2022
- Sustainability is one of the most critical topics in the global printing industry these years. Global warming is a severe challenge to everybody, and while companies, individuals, and governments work on solutions to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, more things influence global temperatures. Henrik Svensmark is an Astro Physicist at DTU Space and has for years researched how solar flares influence cloud formation, which also has a huge impact on global warming. In this unusual presentation (for being in the graphic arts industry), Henrik Svensmark guides our audience through the research and the ideas they are pursuing. Great presentation and the INKISH team is happy that we can bring this interesting research to our audience. Thank you Henrik Svensmark.
- Наука та технологія
Conclusion....climate change affects living beings....not the other way around.Thank you.
Excellent presentation Dr. Svensmark. This subject is very complicated and people with a degree in basic Physics will begin to appreciate these ideas. In the end, my prediction is you will be vindicated in your hypothesis. Good will to you and your family.
Absolutely brilliant.
Highlights the contempt that the mainstream media of all persuasions including this 1 have for the truth and integrity of honest journalism..
I’ve never seen so much cloud cover as the last two summers in Melbourne, Australia..or how few times the temperature has been above 33°.
Children growing up on anti depressants or worse outcomes is a humanitarian disgrace.
I hope you are all forwarding this to as many believers in the truth as you can..
I can't believe this is not shown everywhere
Give this great scientist a Nobel Prize!
Probably when they say 'Oh butter fingers, we were wrong' & Henrik will be long dead!.
Outstanding work. Well done!
The geomagnetic field has been decreasing since about 1880 and continues to do so at an accelerating rate thereby allowing more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere.
Completely correct... there's many processes at play here....
The climate is changing.... but we are not the be all end all when it comes to the equation......
There's many natural processes at work here..... the magnetic poles are shifting and have accelerated over the last 100 years.... this has decreased the strength of the magnetosphere allowing the energy from solar coronal mass ejections to have a greater impact on our atmosphere.... this in turn has helped change the trajectories of the jet streams, upsetting our "normal" weather patterns.....
There is also the chandler wobble which effects the geographical north and south axis.... the earth wobbles in precession every 26,000 years.....
Earths rotation is speeding up, days are becoming shorter..
The sun micro novas and blasts off it's coronal shell..
There's also the milankovitch cycle..... this changes earths cyclical precession around the sun from a circular shape into a oval shape. This creates tidal heaving in earths core and continental plates, leading to more earthquakes and volcanic activity..
None of the above we can do much about and are all natural processes, we aren't causing these things to happen yet they will ultimately play the biggest roll on our climate and earth... that's why we're not told about it in the news daily, they can't sell us a solution to these problems...... notice how many are buying bunkers though, notice how many are preparing for serious issues.
We do however need to change our behaviour, we can do more to stop poisoning our environment and the air we breath, this is our home, let's stop poisoning the well before we can't anymore, destroying our environment for profit is madness.
Peace, power and freedom to all....
There was a huge event in recent paleoclimate in which the Sun went quiet for 4,000 years and caused a huge increase in cosmic ray flux for 4,000 years. There was no measurable effect on Earth's globally-averaged mean surface-air temperature (GMST). So this cosmic ray flux so-called influence is a nothingness because it's entirely clear that cosmic rays aren't needed to seed cloud droplets to make them smaller. There's already plenty of nucleii available. When experiment (an experiment with Earth in this case) entirely disagrees with a hypothesis which one do you throw out ? Throw out the valid experiment and keep the unsubstantiated hypothesis ? Or throw out the unsubstantiated hypothesis shown to be incorrect by experiment ? I always forget which it is.
@@WSmith_1984😊
Rubbish
Eyes open, no fear.😁
Life and our planet is a miracle.
Quite possibly the most important lecture of our age. Henrik has (again) taken it to another level.
I teach introductory economics. To do so I teach all the theories, not just one. The natural sciences should do the same. Now all physics, biology, and chemistry teachers should teach this theory along with the current interpretation, else they are biased.
And when I teach climate policy theory I show my students Svensmark's theory along with the current theory. They thank me and say they have never seen or heard of this before from their other teachers.
Yes they will never se this in mainstream media. So thanks for spreading the truth.
In science, a "theory" is a set of proven knowledge, repeatedly checked and found sound, and able to make predictions. Like, germ theory. Microbes were discovered, it was found that some of them caused specific diseases, that those diseases never happened unless those microbes were present, and if you could stop them from spreading (quarantines, antiseptics), train your immune system to fight them before catching the infection (vaccines), or kill them if you had gotten it already (antibiotics), disease spread would stop. That's the world we live in now, and that's germ theory at work.
If a set of knowledge is still a proposition, if it hasn't proved itself right through experimentation or repeated observation by multiple researchers, and cannot predict effects, it isn't a scientific theory, but an hypothesis. A theory can be perfected, corrected, but is beyond the possibility of being disproved. An hypothesis is not the equal to a theory.
By the way, it is known, it has been experimented and checked once and again since the 19th century, that air with more CO2 in it retains more heat. Since the Industrial Revolution, humankind has been throwing CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, by the tons, daily (tons of gases, mind you). Can you possibly have a cause without its respective effect?
Amazing work Dr Svensmark . Thank you for such a thought provoking presentation and the work you are doing. this will be food for thought for my sons school science teacher.
The cause of glaciations had been a classical mystery, but it is no longer so. Thank you Mr. Svensmark!
Brilliant presentation!
Brilliant work: food for thought.
Excellent work Dr. Svensmark and much appreciated! More than you possibly know. One thing that's absolutely frustrating in climate science is that when you hear the phrase "the science is settled" you are talking politics and political propaganda, not science at all. Again, thanks for adding color to such a complex scientific domain.
Wonderful work Dr. Svensmark. The way you see the earth as connected to the stars is particularly beautiful. OK, correlation is not causation and all that but such a strong prima facie case has to have something behind it.
Truly excellent and concise presentation. Thank you
Cool! and it has been shown that the movement of the planets affects the activity of the Sun, and also shoves things around so that the distance of the Earth to the Sun varies, the inclination varies, it is complicated for sure.
Very interesting. Another non consensus 'renegade'. And another example of why forcing consensus science, and preventing different views/ research can trap science on low fitness peaks.
That is, scientists are constrained from finding better answers and understanding as politics, NGOs, science bodies, and media/ social media collectively concentrate funding, reward, and effort in one area (examples might be CO2 climate control knob, dark matter, and string theory).
T
Retired NASA scientists reviewed warmists computer models.' Unverified" by data." Unteliable' as policy.
Nitrostudy: ,1992 when UN put together their global warming policy it was out of thin air.No foundation to support ( data measurements) it
Is it possible that Henrik’s theory on how GCR link to clouds and their effect on climate is specific enough to be tested empirically? It is amazing how well it models climate from very small to grand time scales and us supported in surprising ways by other independent sources. Henrik’s astrophysical approach to GCR production and how well it fits to climate proxy data is just too good to dismiss outright. Will this get the proper scientific review or is it too threatening to the established narrative? Henrik’s if you read this I have a suggestion for you: aggregate all your data, proxy and astrophysical, into a single time interpolated grid data set and perform a OPLS regression on your GCR data. How good is the model? The residuals are any information not related to the explanatory variables. Do these have any correlation to CO2?
It is 99.999% politics that drive the agenda, so there's your answer.
There was a huge event in recent paleoclimate in which the Sun went quiet for 4,000 years and caused a huge increase in cosmic ray flux for 4,000 years. There was no measurable effect on Earth's globally-averaged mean surface-air temperature (GMST). So this cosmic ray flux so-called influence is a nothingness because it's entirely clear that cosmic rays aren't needed to seed cloud droplets to make them smaller. There's already plenty of nucleii available. When experiment (an experiment with Earth in this case) entirely disagrees with a hypothesis which one do you throw out ? Throw out the valid experiment and keep the unsubstantiated hypothesis ? Or throw out the unsubstantiated hypothesis shown to be incorrect by experiment ? I always forget which it is.
I highly recommend you to check this gentleman's biography in Wikipedia (for starters, then dive to the sources, that's how you use Wikipedia) to see how his hypothesis has been doing.
Other scientists have tested it, empirically, and found it with little merit.
(Don't argue with me, argue with the scientists via peer-reviewed papers).
must be correlated to CO2, bc higher temperatures cause an increase in CO2 due to warming of the oceans. if I remember correctly, there‘s an 800 year offset between delta temperature and delta CO2.
@@MariaMartinez-researcher I'm not arguing with anyone and I certainly don't need your condescending comments on how to research ANYTHING! There are many who have in fact looked at GCR as a source of negative cloud feedback and would disagree with your assessment; Dr. Richard Lindzen and Willi Soon to name two, others as well. His (Henrick) hypothesis is supported at EVERY time scale from days to weeks to years to millennium to epochs. Its hard to reject correlation of this kind since nothing else that I know of works so well. Maybe you have a climate metric I don't know about that you would care to share that performs similarly? Perhaps the GCM's prediction of temperatues would be one? Opps, that one has never been correct nor correlates to any data prior to 1850. Hmmmm, makes me wonder, as would any rational person interested in what is happening.
Wonderful presentation.
A field that was very distant in my readings but your presentation is very insightful. Hope many more people and scientist take note.
This Earth Will Pass Away
Brilliant work. Thank you.
Indeed, nail him upside down like St. Peter to make sure 😂 following Svensmarks studies since about ten years and his denounciation by the co2 prophetes. They 'll just protecting their holy grail to the limit
Thanks so much for the video
I associate to Galileo, he also went against the narrative and almost got burned.
Millankovitch proved that repetitive cycles were the cause of the global cooling not man likes Lennon was preaching and the Russian governments policies would not slow it! Lennon executed him!
The climate is changing, but we are not the be all end all when it comes to the equation...
There's many natural processes at work here.. the magnetic poles are shifting and have accelerated over the last 100 years.. this has decreased the strength of the magnetosphere allowing the energy from solar coronal mass ejections to have a greater impact on our atmosphere... this in turn has helped change the trajectories of the jet streams, upsetting our "normal" weather patterns...
There is also the chandler wobble which effects the geographical north and south axis.. the earth wobbles in precession every 26,000 years...
Earths rotation is speeding up, days are becoming shorter..
The sun micro novas and blasts off it's coronal shell..
There's also the milankovitch cycle..... this changes earths cyclical precession around the sun from a circular shape into a oval shape. This creates tidal heaving in earths core and continental plates, leading to more earthquakes and volcanic activity.....
None of the above we can do much about and are all natural processes, we aren't causing these things to happen yet they will ultimately play the biggest roll on our climate and earth... that's why we're not told about it in the news daily, they can't sell us a solution to these problems...... notice how many are buying bunkers though, notice how many are preparing for serious issues.....
We do however need to change our behaviour, we can do more to stop poisoning our environment and the air we breath, this is our home, let's stop poisoning the well before we can't anymore, destroying our environment for profit is madness.....
Peace, power and freedom to all....
Exactly my thoughts. I'm not sold on climate change being caused by one human factor because I think considering all possible factors is necessary for survival. But burning fossil fuels and farm animal methane is still clearly toxic for our air and creates a greenhouse effect. Gross.
Fantastiskt bra Henrik,
Last solar cycle the sun went over 300 days without sunspots which means no CMEs for 300 days. There must be massive data sets that shows the increase of cosmic rays during that period
There's paleo climate proxy record that shows a period when the Sun went very quiet for 4,000 years. A massive increase in cosmic rays is measured by whatever isotope(s) that is (Beryllium maybe) and the gold-standard temperature proxy shows there was NO measurable change in Earth's surface temperature. What the Junk-science disinformation shill Svensmark intentionally doesn't tell his audience is that and that it is THE SUN CYCLES that causes BOTH the cyclical variation in cosmic rays AND ALSO the small change in global cloud cover. Instead the Junk-science disinformation shill Svensmark pretends it's the changes in cosmic rays causing the changes in cloud cover. Scientists (except not the Tired Old Clown Lindzen) increasingly know that cloud changes are a +ve feedback to warming and cooling, amplifying it, so of course during the solar cycle the (tropical ocean) cloud changes happen that amplify its warming and cooling. Nothing to do with cosmic rays, it's simply that the slightly warmer air leads to slightly less cloud which increases the slight warming slightly. The demonstrated fact by 4,000 year experiment I mentioned is that more cosmic rays aren't needed in order to nucleate cloud droplets, there's plenty of tiny particles in the air anyway.
----------------------
The Junk-science disinformation shill Svensmark knows he has a perfect audience because it's consisting only of bods who (1) Have no science education nor brain functionality for it and (2) More importantly, don't actually give a shit about the science anyway because their ONLY interest is their money and definitely not this science. This latter, most important one, is crucial because Svensmark and all the others have a PERFECT audience, which is an audience that absolutely requires them to be correct no matter what thoughts they present provided that those thoughts lead to the lowest cost for carbon to burn. It's massively ironic that the (ahem) "Skeptics" aren't even the slightest bit skeptical about assertions about this science, only massively PREFERENTIAL (regarding their money), and it's massively ironic that the so-called "Skeptics" didn't think of "It's the Sun, stupid !" for this particular assertion (for which it actually IS the Sun, stupid) but only for absolutely any whatsoever of the highly-convincing, sensible science about so-called "greenhouse gases (GHGs)".
@@grindupBaker Hate to break it to you...but muons cause volcanic activity to increase and release more sulfer and particulates of which in turn causes cloud nucleation to increase especially in silica rich magma bubble chambers. The muons come from the scattering of cosmic rays...
@@grindupBaker While I agree it is solar cycles that are the main driver of Earths climate along with the Milankovitch cycles, albedo, grading of Earths axis and greenhouse gases which are the factors of climate forcing. Energy from the sun is sent through the IMF where it impacts the magnetosheath and flows inward to the LLBL that then flows into the L-shell magnetic field lines and then into the global electric circuit. Also, energy is stored in the magnetotail where it is introduced into the Birkeland,Halls and Pederson currents at the poles. This is the main reason why the polar ice has melted releasing fresh water into the gyres that are in turn slowing the oceans currents which will add to the cooling. Svensmark is, in my opinion, correct on his analysis of cosmic rays that induce scattering of particles that in turn increase cloud nucleation...directly and indirectly by way of muon penetration of the crust that causes magma intrusion and increases volcanic activity...thus increasing cloud nucleation by way of sulfer and particulates.
Thanks for the update. I read the book The Chilling Stars some time ago.
It's a very good presentation Henrik. Maybe your best on UA-cam 🤷🏼♂️👍
And PS please don't reduce carbon too much. I'm made of it!
That carbon is excaktly the kind the eugenics want to reduce 😢
Thankyou.
That's closer to the truth compared to the nonsense about CO2.
This is the most brilliant research I have ever listened too.. I don't know why everyone is talking about climate change and not doing anything about it when the path is clear.. just control the cloud cover.
So what your really saying is we are being scammed with this net zero
Si instead of buying carbons credit to the oligarques, we will have to buy cosmic rays credits to the oligarques.
Am I right ?
How has your theory been accepted by the scientific community, particularly the IPCC?
Like the Tai Chi ball, basically, with movement, yet we notice the structure of the shell maintains it's geometry.
Is "Topside" modulating this?
In other words, sooner or later, we're toast!
Where are the climate scientists refuting this?
We hear of the growth of mycelium resulting from lightning strikes.
Could we call this terra-
forming, etc?
Why didn't we listen when Milankovitch said all of this over 100 years ago?
The Answer was there the whole time. We just had to look up and past the clouds
Curious that the UN gets highlighted below the video.
It's so you can go there and pray to the CO2 God after Seing the truth we need to keep you in the metric.
His theories may be right or not so right but you cannot deny that he extremely intelligent and passionate about his work. I’m sure he will still be labelled a climate crisis denier ☹️
Seems like the structure of the phenomena of lightning.
Physicists have been arguing over the dominant variables in the physics of cloud formation for decades; still going. But ecologists and biologists claim to understand planetary climate from first principles.
Wow
Riveting presentation
It is IS possible to TEST ideas with a numerical model but it is not possible to verify a theory with a numerical model. Tests in the physical reality is always needed to prove the validity of any theory concerning the physicsl world.
There was a huge event in recent paleoclimate in which the Sun went quiet for 4,000 years and caused a huge increase in cosmic ray flux for 4,000 years. There was no measurable effect on Earth's globally-averaged mean surface-air temperature (GMST). So this cosmic ray flux so-called influence is a nothingness because it's entirely clear that cosmic rays aren't needed to seed cloud droplets to make them smaller. There's already plenty of nucleii available. When experiment (an experiment with Earth in this case) entirely disagrees with a hypothesis which one do you throw out ? Throw out the valid experiment and keep the unsubstantiated hypothesis ? Or throw out the unsubstantiated hypothesis shown to be incorrect by experiment ? I always forget which it is.
give this man a nobel prize
They're beaming me using the Quadro, but the roaches, they congregate at particular energy confluence - they like that. Shamanically, some are performing invocation of insectoid energies, and they easily become vehicles for spiritual beings.
Take-away:
The increase of physical life, from Others and/or circumstantially, bespeaks in interest and work to continue life here, despite whom thinks they're in. charge here.
I explained this theory to my ex-sister-in-law and she hung up on me. Why do some people find this so offensive?
Theories like this challenge a very, very well entrenched narrative. One that has spawned a trillion dollar industry. The success of the green/renewable industry is entirely dependent on the idea that CO2, particularly man made, is the driving force of climate change. We've all been fed this narrative so much, that people are highly resistant to any information that might prove them wrong.
Seems as though most people really can't abide anything they don't agree with in the modern era. I've had very similar results in trying to explain it to others. Good on you for keeping an open mind, and seeing the merits of the theory!
CO2 the white elephant .
I dont see this as a reason to deny antropogenic climat change. Svenmark clearly demonstrate that more organic life activity is present on a cooler earth. So, warming the planet with greenhouse gasses doesnt means neccesary a good thing.
There's paleo climate proxy record that shows a period when the Sun went very quiet for 4,000 years. A massive increase in cosmic rays is measured by whatever isotope(s) that is (Beryllium maybe) and the gold-standard temperature proxy shows there was NO measurable change in Earth's surface temperature. What the Junk-science disinformation shill Svensmark intentionally doesn't tell his audience is that and that it is THE SUN CYCLES that causes BOTH the cyclical variation in cosmic rays AND ALSO the small change in global cloud cover. Instead the Junk-science disinformation shill Svensmark pretends it's the changes in cosmic rays causing the changes in cloud cover. Scientists (except not the Tired Old Clown Lindzen) increasingly know that cloud changes are a +ve feedback to warming and cooling, amplifying it, so of course during the solar cycle the (tropical ocean) cloud changes happen that amplify its warming and cooling. Nothing to do with cosmic rays, it's simply that the slightly warmer air leads to slightly less cloud which increases the slight warming slightly. The demonstrated fact by 4,000 year experiment I mentioned is that more cosmic rays aren't needed in order to nucleate cloud droplets, there's plenty of tiny particles in the air anyway.
----------------------
The Junk-science disinformation shill Svensmark knows he has a perfect audience because it's consisting only of bods who (1) Have no science education nor brain functionality for it and (2) More importantly, don't actually give a shit about the science anyway because their ONLY interest is their money and definitely not this science. This latter, most important one, is crucial because Svensmark and all the others have a PERFECT audience, which is an audience that absolutely requires them to be correct no matter what thoughts they present provided that those thoughts lead to the lowest cost for carbon to burn. It's massively ironic that the (ahem) "Skeptics" aren't even the slightest bit skeptical about assertions about this science, only massively PREFERENTIAL (regarding their money), and it's massively ironic that the so-called "Skeptics" didn't think of "It's the Sun, stupid !" for this particular assertion (for which it actually IS the Sun, stupid) but only for absolutely any whatsoever of the highly-convincing, sensible science about so-called "greenhouse gases (GHGs)".
so what does this have to do with climate change? and the 6th great extinction?
Maybe watch it before you ask?
cloud formation could also be dust coming in from space that h20 molecules settle on and grow into water droplets,
we know that the water droplets in the clouds capture 95% of the reflected long-wave infrared heat and reflect it back down,
and a smaller part of the incoming infrared heat from the sun is also reflected back into space by the water droplets in the clouds,
the fact that the solar system moves between the arms of the milky way does not really fit in with what you see when you look at the average temperature for the last 600 million years, because the average temperature varies quite a bit from 25 degrees c to 12.5 degrees,
we know that there have been 125.000 years between the interglacials in the last 1 million years and before that there were only 41.000 years and since a shorter cold period gives a higher average temperature,
the temperature was on average 17 degrees for a short period with 41.000 years, when it came down from 19 degrees,
it does not fit well with our system moving between the individual arms,
but it fits with another theory
our solar system oscillates between the upper and lower edge of the milky way arm we are in and the trip takes about 60-65 million years,
and that we have a twin sun or other heavy planet, perhaps an extinct star that orbits our sun like a comet just means that for the last 1 million years it has had an orbital period of 125,000 years,
the planet-sun-dead-star orbital period is then sometimes changed by another star that it encounters out there, hence the changed orbital periods and the resulting different average temperature over the last 600 million years,
it fits with other things we can see here on the planet,
each time it comes in from the north through the ort cloud and drags astorides in and makes trouble in our solar system, e.g. venus rotates backwards in relation to all other planets in the solar system and very slowly, 1 day is longer than 1 year on venus,
neptune and uranus, where one lies down and rotates and the other somewhat at 45 degrees if i remember correctly in relation to its orbit around the sun,
pluto which has a very long oval orbit and is tilted compared to the rest of the planets, something has affected them,
every time the second sun-planet-dead star comes in, it draws i.a. the earth in a spiral form closer to the sun, i.e. we get further into the goldie lock zone and thus we get out of the great ice age with 10 degrees c below now, eg. the last time 125,000 years ago it was 5-6 degrees warmer than today, and then we slowly move out again so the temperature drops again,
last time the earth was again hit by a cloud of astorids in the northern hemisphere from around the ural mountains over north europe to north america where 2 big ones came down,
they went through 3 km of ice and the one place left what we call today saginaw bay in the southwest of Huan Lake, on the other side of the lake there is shock quartz, and created Carolina bays and Nebraska rainwater basins from the ice that came down that they blasted out of the ice cap,
No. 2 came down further west, about as far from Lake Michigan as there is from the lake to Saginaw Bay,
they triggered the Younger Dryas,
but it can only be seen on Greenland's ice cores because the enormous amounts of meltwater that came out into the Gulf of Mexico forced the Gulf Stream away so that it did not come west and north of Cuba, but was forced south of the island and out into the middle of the Atlantic, so the temperature on Greenland dropped 10 degrees , it is seen in the ice cores but not in those from Antarctica,
those 2 caused the earth to shift its pivot point from approx. north of hudson bay and the edge of antarctica under west australia to where they are now,
that explains the sudden extinction of plants and mammals in North America where it got warmer, Patagonia where it got cold, Australia the temperature rose and in Siberia mammoths froze to ice with fresh food in their stomachs,
it became much hotter within seconds in e.g. north america, as if you now lived many 100 km north of the canadian border and seconds later in texas, the climate change so quickly nothing can stand,
and remember the large mammals survived the 2000 years younger dryas that lived on both sides of the poles where the climate did not change,
when the ice had evaporated and came down as ice over the new north pole and the rest ran out into the gulf and down through the hudson valley and washed through at the southern end of a gigantic moraine we call long island today,
the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere rose 14 degrees in 25 years at the end of the Younger Dryas and the Gulf Stream returned to the North Atlantic
and it's not the first time it's happened, seems like it happens every time the extra planet-sun-dead star comes by,
try to draw a line between the 2 north and south poles from that time and draw a new equator line,
then you will see that it goes through places on the globe with byngning works we know are at least 13,000 years old, in south turkey and south east asia
the sun oscillates on its course around the same center as the rest of the planets because jupiter in particular pulls on it, this causes temperature variations on the globe as the goldie lock zone is always the same distance from the sun,
but a possible reason for the increase in temperature could be that the earth is changing its magnetic north and south pole which it does regularly over 1000's of years, nasa discovered a large south pole field off florida in 75 and many small south pole fields on it northern hemisphere and corresponding north pole fields on the southern hemisphere,
the magnetic field protects us against the solar winds, which are warmer than the surface of the sun, and since ours has weakened over the years because the globe is changing, we see that north and south light comes closer to the equator, the heat from the sun also comes closer to the globe ,
in 1999 it was shown where for 3 weeks it was 60 degrees during the day and 40 at night, then it disappeared again and appeared the next year further to the west, it was a south pole hole in the magnetic field, you have to see it as a long tube you want to shine through and only when the angle is right will light come through, then the sun is right in relation to the sun, more heat will come down,
so the weakening of the earth's magnetic field can also have an impact on our climate,
it is like walking closer to a fire when the magnetic field becomes weaker and the sun's heat can get closer,
@Jim Hanson: The description of the GCR and the formation of clouds was referring to stratospheric clouds not tropospheric clouds. Also, the thesis presented was not addressing the Milankovitch cycle but that the presence of GCR is greater and lesser as our solar system orbits our galaxy and how our suns heliosphere moderates the supply of interacting GCR. Try paring down your post to one or two cogent thoughts so it will be read and maybe understood.
There was a huge event in recent paleoclimate in which the Sun went quiet for 4,000 years and caused a huge increase in cosmic ray flux for 4,000 years. There was no measurable effect on Earth's globally-averaged mean surface-air temperature (GMST). So this cosmic ray flux so-called influence is a nothingness because it's entirely clear that cosmic rays aren't needed to seed cloud droplets to make them smaller. There's already plenty of nucleii available. When experiment (an experiment with Earth in this case) entirely disagrees with a hypothesis which one do you throw out ? Throw out the valid experiment and keep the unsubstantiated hypothesis ? Or throw out the unsubstantiated hypothesis shown to be incorrect by experiment ? I always forget which it is.
So am I getting this right? CMEs are from the sun, and are a limiting factor on cosmic rays, which are from supernovas, entering our atmosphere. Right now we are in solar minimum (reduced CMÉs) so we have increased cosmic rays.. Cosmic rays lead to more oxygen, evolutionary upgrades and more ability to support life? So we actually need more not less co2 for plant life, and to keep the balance between oxygen and co2?!?
Today the witches are predicting the Earth is burning up from climate change.
Hirn ist hier eingeschaltet.
I have listened to Professor Svensmark previously and consider his theory an interesting challenge to the idea of anthropogenic climate change - that is, so far as I am able to judge the matter. I think of Professor Svensmark, as a serious scientist but then on BBC Radio 4's The Life Scientific programme, for example, I have listened to many eminent scientists, people also of good character in my estimation, who believe that greenhouse gases are at the root of our environmental problems. There is a further consideration however: progress already made towards the world becoming carbon neutral has been dramatic and has already produced many clear benefits.
There is after all no question that fossil fuels are a) a finite resource and b) increasingly expensive to access and c) an unwise dependency for any nation state in the current climate of international turmoil. The development of renewable energy has already delivered significant dividends to the UK economy and given greater resilience in the context of the war in Ukraine. We have not yet broken our dependence on fossil fuels but clearly this is achievable and our progress towards that objective is already delivering cleaner and cheaper energy.
The environmental crisis which is unfolding is not simply defined by a warming climate. I sense that enthusiasm for Professor Svensmark's theory and work overlooks a reality clearly arising from the rapacious and expansionist nature of industrial capitalism and the lifestyle to which increasing numbers of the world's population are becoming committed and the challenge of feeding that population adequately. The amount of land available for wildlife across the world has shrunk dramatically compared with that fraction currently occupied by farmed animals. There is an associated destruction of rainforest to grow food for these animals. In the UK alone "Since 1930, we have lost 97 percent of our wildflower meadows, half our ancient woodland, 56 percent of our heathland and 90 percent of our lowland ponds. Wheat yields in this country doubled from 1970 to today, while the number of farmland birds fell by 54 percent." This statistic comes from Henry Dimbleby's recently published book "Ravenous". The book starts by looking at the health crisis in the UK and the US and draws on work done by Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King's College London to show that this health crisis is related to Ultra Processed Foods coming out of the food industry. Another factor discussed is the industrialisation of farming which is destroying our environment both by its chemical basis and its expansionist character. The good news however is that Henry Dimbleby sees what looks like a solution on the horizon, which could result in the restoration of habitat, and the management of farming in ways that are long term sustainable and promise to feed us with healthy cheap and tasty food…but maybe you should read the book. As Prue Leith says: “It’s a cracking good read.”
Except, ultimately, either humans reduce their population or find ways to increase food production. Increased CO2 and use of fossil fuel based fertilizers have allowed the latter since both encourage plant growth to previously unprecedented levels. With cheap energy (which green energy isn't), industrialisation and education, human fertility rates drop. We've seen this in advanced countries where fertility rates are now below replacement level. Spread that to the developing world and we might be able to get a handle on the problem. Instead, we deny them that opportunity, forcing them to use unreliable, expensive and ecologically damaging wind farms (require fossil fuels to make, blades last less than 20 years, can't be recycled and have to be buried) and solar panels (inefficient, require slave labout and fossil fuels to make. Large amounts can't be recycled, leaking chemicals damage the soil). With people from poorer countries flooding in to the west where nuclear and fossil fuels provide energy, and oil provides goods (like plastics), leading to a more interconnected, longer and better life, and the native population not replacing itself, the west will soon die out and, as the now denuded areas are taken over by people who are still having large families, we can see the end of humans on Earth on the horizon. The wars that will break out between the different people, so used to fighting each other in their own countries but now with access to much more powerful weapons, including nuclear, should ensure the destruction of the planet. This is what the green agenda will give us.
We need to get a LOT better at recycling. It costs around £30 to recycle a solar panel and you get about £4 worth of goods at the end. We can and must do better. Most plastic isn't recycled. It's shipped to poorer countries where it ends up in the waterways from whence it makes its way to the seas. We need to take responsibility and find a way to recycle in our own countries well enough to use the results. Arabia had 42 million car tyres sitting in the desert (over 7 million of which went up in smoke). They turned the remainder into road surfacing. It saves on concrete (uses coal to manufacture) but if we can find a way to turn rubber, plastics etc. into things we can use again, THAT will be a real solution, but it will need lots of reliable energy. Wind and solar aren't. Nuclear is but electricity is no use where you need very high temperatures. Annealed glass, used for solar panels, requires the materials be heated to over 1500 C. You cannot do that with electricity. Get rid of fossil fuels, especially oil, and we'll have no need for electricity because we'll have nothing still working that uses it. The green lobby wants us to go back to a pre-industrial world where life was nasty, brutish and short. We need to go forward into a world where we find real alternatives to oil (that's a priority because, as you say, we're running low although we're all right for now), ways to recycle properly what we have, and working, reliable alternatives for energy. Since solar and windfarms rely on fossil fuels to be made, and are, by nature, unreliable, they are NOT the solution.
@@derrickwells333 Well, neighbour, good to hear from you. Not sure about that "b" in Dumfries ... Hope all well.
It all does sound a lot more believable than the "...cow farts cause climate change..." rubbish that gets spun by eco-mentalists 😂
Why do these amatuer moderators of presentations make such a lousy job of recording the event. Continually switching from the presenter to a blurred view of the screen when the presenter is talking about a slide is frankly ridiculuous and detracts from an excellent presentation. frustrating!!
You don't believe him?
Leave food for cockroach and see what happens. BTW, they like honey & water.
First problem is that the cosmic ray flux has varied with the solar cycle (8000-10000) but there is no trend - up or down - over the last 70 years (during the time of the most severe GW)
Second, Coronal Mass Ejections rarely hit the Earth. He may have found a link on this one occasion but what were the characteristics of that CME? Do we get the same effect every time that we get a direct hit? How many times does it happen in a year?
Third, note the effect is short lived. What proportion of the time does this happen and is it enough to affect global temperatures? I think not.
Lastly, doesn't his theory predict a cooling of the Earth, not a warming. Many claim that the Sun's magnetic field has weakened over the last 70 years (e,g, Sunspot numbers peaked in the 1950s), so CR fluxes would increase producing more clouds and cooling the Earth but hat is not what we have observed. We have observed warming over that time.
Looks like his theory is a bust! :(
I don't know your scientific background, but I have forwarded your comment to Henrik Svensmark. If you have listened carefully to his presentation at our event, Henrik Svensmark often say 'it seems' or 'there might be..' - I have followed Henrik Svensmark for years, and when I see his presentation (as well as this), he collect data, and tries to see patterns, reflect on these, and see if these can be recreated - but let's see if he has time to respond!
/Morten B. Reitoft - Editor-in-Chief
And I got this reply from Henrik Svensmark:
The above comments are a fundamental misunderstanding of what was presented since the talk provided a theory of natural climate change, not anthropogenic climate change. The idea has the potential to explain why solar activity and climate covary over the last 10.000 years. The agreement on geological timescales (million to billion years) is even more remarkable.
Coronal Mass Ejections are studied since they provide an opportunity to isolate the effect of cosmic-ray mechanism on aerosols, clouds, and Earth's energy budget over a few days. The observations confirm both existence and strength of the mechanism. Nowhere is it suggested that these rare events are important for climate
Lastly, the theory does not exclude the effect of greenhouse gases. Still, it does mean that solar activity, as part of natural variability, must be considered when estimating historical and future climates.
@@INKISH Of course solar activity over billions of year affects the climate. As the Sun evolves along the HR diagram, its output changes which, per force, will change the energy balance on the Earth. Gradual stellar evolution over billions of years is not a reason to argue that the Sun is causing global warming over decades, even in part.
My point remains, that there has been no significant trend in cosmic ray rates over the last several decades so it would have no effect on changing our climate.
CME do not create cosmic rays - they produce solar energetic particles (lower mass and energy than cosmic rays), so their effect will be different. Yes, we get proton events but they are caused by big flares not CMEs. Most of the CMEs are diverted around and away from the Earth.
I do have an idea if he seriously wants to study cloud variability. All over the world people are erecting solar panels. I found with ours we can characterize cloud cover and type from the output of the arrays. These are usually monitored quantitatively and continuously during daylight hours. Effectively humanity has built a global cloud monitoring system. Why not use it to find if and how clouds are changing as a function of location and seasonally?
@@INKISH That explanation goes against his years of explaining that his concentration showed why Earth is warming. Thank goodness he stopped with that nonsense.
" the cosmic ray flux has varied with the solar cycle (8000-10000) but there is no trend " ... what ??
the larger trend is there and it was detected by how much C14 is generated
in from 2015 until 2021 the cosmic ray flux was growing, and strangely it began decreasing as the very cold start of summer gave in to warming
Oh great, a climate change denier!
/S
Save Our Planet Now
I highly recommend you to check this gentleman's biography in Wikipedia (for starters, then dive to the sources, that's how you use Wikipedia) to see how his hypothesis has been doing.
Other scientists have tested it, empirically, and found it with little merit.
(Don't argue with me, argue with the scientists via peer-reviewed papers).
The temperature record is not a theory. Climate change is natural no one is denying. The current Peer reviewed papers process are a cancer on science. True peer review is what happens after a paper is published. not when being reviewed by cherry picked reviewers. Group think somewhere else and let science be ongoing like it's meant to be.
Which peer reviewed paper do you speak of?
Mostly debunked now.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Debate_updates
The past temperature record is not in dispute. His theory might not satisfy folks. He is trying to do science by observation. Observation and data, which is how science should be done, not by consensus.
Ah yes. The super reliable source that is Wikipedia. No agendas there at all....
Amazing thank you