Quote:
Originally Posted by William
The solar magnetic field changes are hypothesized to affect planetary temperature by modulating planetary cloud.
|
But this is just my point. I do not say there's no way the Sun can affect the Earth, I say that any mechanism coming from the Sun that the Earth is highly sensitive to will also generate similar mechanisms that the Earth is sensitive to from sources other than the Sun! Are solar magnetic fields the only things that can "modulate planetary cloud?" How about the hundred other mechanisms that can do that, where is the evidence that the minimal solar effects should be more important? I don't say they cannot, I say the arguments are leaving out this rather crucial piece. It is never enough to "brainstorm" ways that some particular process might conceivably matter, the issue is to make an argument that it is the dominant factor. To do that, one cannot simply say "the Sun could do it if I adopt the following assumptions", you maust also say "these same assumptions do not lead to any number of other things having that same, or greater, effect". A good argument needs that, badly.
Quote:
|
Satellite observations by Palle and observation of changes of the earth’s albedo by observing earthshine reflected off of the moon also by Palle, supports the hypothesis.
|
Again, that is correlation in search of causation. The above challenge is still unmet-- if I can find a dozen other things that also correlate with clouding, including the stock market, why should I think it's the Sun that's doing it?
Quote:
|
There are two mechanisms in which solar magnetic field changes could modulate planetary cloud cover.
|
"Could", so what? I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm asking why I should think that's the dominant mechanism.
Quote:
The following are the two cloud modulating mechanisms:
1) "Electroscavenging" which is the name for the mechanism where sudden solar wind bursts are hypothesized to increase currents in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions.
|
Sounds like complete hooey. But easy enough to test-- we do have satellites that will know when there are solar wind bursts-- so why is the data used more often indirect things like solar activity measures? When indirect data shows better correlations than direct data, it's a red flag, to say the least.
Quote:
|
2) Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) by changes in the solar heliosphere. Svensmark has done some detailed research in this area. The high speed GCR (mostly protons) strike the earth’s upper atmosphere and create muons. The muons travel on to lower regions of the atmosphere where they create cloud forming ions.
|
Again, we
measure cosmic ray fluxes! The only way to establish this mechanism that would make any sense is the direct correlation, not the use of solar activity data.
Quote:
|
“The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds” by Palle et al.
|
Even the title shows the paper is not attempting to explain anything, so interpreting it that way is inappropriate. It is merely assessing plausibility, so it is just the first 1% or so of a real argument.
Quote:
|
The Israel physicist Shaviv has shown that the magnitude of GCR changes depending on the position of the solar system in the Milky Way. When the solar system passes through the galactic arms there is an increase in GCR.
|
No problem there.
Quote:
|
Shaviv has presented data that shows there is an increase in GCR (the increase in GCR causes isotope changes in asteroid fragments. Shaviv studied meteoroids. See paper below for details.) and that the periods of increased GCR, correlate with ice epochs, including the current ice epoch.
|
Oops, back to correlation in search of causation. 99% more to go to get a real argument here as well.
Quote:
In response to your question: What is the relative magnitude of solar and GCR cloud modulation Vs other climate forcing functions, the following paper also by Shaviv estimates the different forcing function.
“On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget” by Nirva Shaviv.
|
Well, one person believes it. That should count for something.
Quote:
|
Towards a Solution to the Early Faint Sun Paradox: A Lower Cosmic Ray Flux from a stronger Solar Wind
|
And there are 100 ways to extinct the dinosaurs too. So what? This is so far from a real argument that we should base our global warming strategies on, it's not even funny.