Wednesday, March 16, 2016

(2A) Profiles in Malicious Deception - Svensmark + 1000frolly

This is the second installment of my dissection of 1000frolly's malicious nonsense in his 1/25/16 YouTube video, "NASA - The "Mystery" of Antarctic Cooling."  For a better introduction please refer to the first installment.  

1000Frolly I'm going to approach this slightly differently from past critiques.  Rather then interspersing my supplemental information within the text, I created a second document of footnotes of my supporting information to stand side by side with your words in this post.  As it goes with debates, I will inject my running commentary throughout.  

    The footnote numbers reference the collection at                                           
      Ideally you can open both and view them side by side.                    

Frolly let our virtual debate continue.  Complaining about me behind my back is cheating.  I will post your comments as I get them, and I offer you a 'guest post' for your thoughtful response, fair and square.

Frolly since you never did get past arm-waving long enough to explain any of "cosmoclimatology" details, I'll start with Svensmark's own explanation of the mechanism, before returning to your game.

Please notice there is nothing "amplifying" going on here.  Furthermore, what climate science contrarians ignore is that all this is about micro effects, while our atmosphere is filled with gigatons worth of appropriately sized aerosols already acting as cloud nucleating particles:

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
Henrik Svensmark | 2007
... Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, the discovery {False.  There was no observation, no discovery.  It was a contrived correlation and one that's questioned by most experts.} that low-level clouds are particularly affected by cosmic-ray variations suggested that a simpler experiment, operating only at sea-level temperature and pressure, might capture some of the essential microphysics. Instead of a particle beam, we used natural cosmic rays, supplemented by gamma rays when we wanted to check the effect of increased ionization of the air. 

Our team set up the experiment in the basement of the Danish National Space Center, with a large plastic box containing purified air {thus eliminating the cloud nucleating aerosols that are always present in our natural sky.} and the trace gases that occur naturally in unpolluted air over the ocean. Ultraviolet lamps mimicked the Sun's rays. During experiments, instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber. We called the experiment SKY, which means “cloud” in Danish.  By 2005 ...

... we had found a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds {NO. Svensmark facilitated production of ultra small potentially (if grown much larger) cloud-nucleating particles.} (Svensmark et al. 2007). The data revealed that electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as catalysts. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei. {please note "ultra-small"} Figure 4 shows a typical run. 

Vast numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared in the {purified} air of the reaction chamber, and their production increased proportionately when we used gamma rays to induce more ionization (figure 4, bottom). The speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of stitching molecular clusters together took us by surprise. {Keep in mind his air chamber was flushed clean of all aerosols.  This experiment does not mimic reality.} It is a mechanism previously unknown in meteorology and it brings the cosmos into climate studies in a precise microphysical way. ... {Notice the key here - "microphysics" in a world of macro players?}

As a sharp observer noted: "Even if what Svensmark says is true, he's multiplying the unnoticeable by the inconsequential"

At #16, Dr. Rasmus Benestad (who has a PhD in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford University and who's actively working in this field), explains the details and implications of Svensmark's experiments.

I transcribed 1000frolly's words as accurately as I could.  If you find any errors, I will acknowledge and correct them.  1000frolly's words are in Comic Sans font and mine are in Verdana font.  

6:35  -   Any way you can see quite clearly here 60, 61 year actually this solar-bary cycle which is actually Yoshimura Gleissberg cycle {see #1}.  There's a lot in the literature about it as well just put one representative paper here from Velasco, Mendoza published in 2007 how they found the 60th cycle was by using the isotope, identifying beryllium10. {So what? see #2}

7:21  -  {Back to the NASA Goddard video}  "This year (2014) in the Antarctic we've seen pretty spectacular maximum extent.  The Antarctic sea ice has expanded beyond anything we've seen before and set a new record. ...(cut) ... the increase that we're seeing in the Antarctic extent is a little bit of a mystery, we're seeing overall temperatures warming around the globe, so you would expect to see ice loss." {cut back to frolly}

7:43 - Well yes you would expect to see ice loss, if you believed {Has nothing to do with belief, it's the evidence.} that CO2 is driving global warming. {Oh, but it does!} 
Ironically, here frolly puts up a graph that 
clearly indicates combined net loss in ice extent, 
yet he denies it.  

But of course if you're, um, Henrik Svensmark ... {About him, see #3}  Cooling Antarctic, warming Arctic and visa versa, switching over every few decades as predicted by the hypothesis and it's nothing strange and it's not a mystery. 

that 1000frolly chooses to deny
{CC: Why I know it's real}
8:15 - Okay, as you know this is a tremendous field, so what I'm gonna try and do is cover as much ... I want to really explain* to you why cosmoclimatology much as what we've seen in the data much better than we have seen the CO2 hypothesis does. {*But he doesn't}  Okay now, CO2 it's a small greenhouse gas globally, I mean that's obvious.  If there's more in the poles, more on the equator, more in the temperate zones, means that you get more warming everywhere.  

Now that's clear.  It's clear from the hypothesis, clear from common sense, clean from the models. {Yup #4} The CO2 hypothesis does actually predict little more warming at the polls than the tropics or the temperate zones. {Yup, it's what's being observed.}  Anyway overall it does predict warming everywhere but that's not what is observed.

Frolly is wrong!  Here's the observations:

NASA | 2014 Continues Long-Term Global Warming (since 1880)
So what we've got there is Antarctica {frolly, do you know it's only 2% of the globe's surface?}, which as we've covered is the canary in the coal mine it shows that the greenhouse effect does not appear to work very well in Antarctica. {It actually does.  But you need to learn about all the facts to understand what's happening down there. see #4}

9:45 - So what we'll do is we'll look at the main opposing theory to the greenhouse CO2 effect {Opposing theory?  Nonsense,  GHG theory is well verified see #5.  You can't pretend it away by finding new minuscule "effects"} and ah this is cosmoclimatology put forward by Henrik Svensmark in the late 1990s.  There's enormous supporting evidence for this hypothesis which I'll go through.  {No there isn't.  Lots of Right-wing PR, but little supporting evidence. see #6}  It's actually really, really if you were starting climate change research from scratch you would start with this idea, because this is the null hypothesis. {Elusive galactic rays a null hypothesis, what a hoot.}  You know Occam's Razor should cut out CO2, CO2 warming before you even start,  {That's looney, our atmosphere is what stands between us and the void of freezing space.  How about using physical laws as your null hypothesis? see #7} you should look at the Sun {Scientist always have, and climatologists have been paying attention.  Claiming they don't is criminal. see #8}, and that is what cosmo-climatology basically involves is the Sun.  The Sun with an amplifying mechanism to be more specific.  {Hmmm}

Okay, so hey we're going to cosmoclimatology. {But, notice, he doesn't.}  Now with co2 you have the ...garbled... which is the enhanced greenhouse effect with amplification from water vapor. {HELLO Frolly!  We DO live on a water planet!  Only a con artist would suggest we disregard that physical reality.} Now, without that you've just got the greenhouse effect which is quite small and not really very much to worry about, one degree of climate sensitivity for doubling of co2. {What do you mean not much to worry about !?  Wishing away reality is a horrible way to move into the future. see #9} 

You've got something similar in the case of cosmoclimatology {Similar to Earth's climate system! ?} because the TSR (total solar reflectance) changes as everyone knows is very small, point one percent per solar cycle not very much over a long period of time from 1752 to today {Yeah, it's a cycle, you know, up-down, so it doesn't accumulate very much.  Not like added 2 gigatons month, after month, after month,...} but we're talking about with what Svensmark is talking about, is an amplification mechanism. {Explain it already, what amplification mechanism?}

Now this is what the amplify mechanism involves, just like CO2 needs an amplifying mechanism to be worrying {Hello! Yes, it does!  So yes, it is worrying!}, ah Cosmoclimatology shows you that the sun has an amplifying mechanism {No you haven't shown anything!} and in order to control the climate for this effect to dominate climate changes then that's what you need, the amplifying mechanism.  {Yes, that's what you'd need, but still don't have. see #10} 

11:45  - Now solar activity variations modulate incoming Galactic cosmic rays.
{That's a modulating mechanism, NOT "amplifying".}  What we've got coming in all the time from out there in the universe is high-energy cosmic rays of this sort of energy. {Right, all the time.  Since forever.  While Earth's climate has been all over the map!} Around about one GV or above those of the one's that reach the lower troposphere and they're the ones we're talking.  We're not talking about solar protons, solar cosmic rays, we're talking galactic cosmic rays, that have high energy.  {Yeah, we're talking about a super attenuated, ultra thin drizzle.  While here on Earth we've increased our atmospheric insulation medium by 30% in a geologic blink of an eye.  But, frolly ignores that.  It seems downright criminal.}

Now what they do is effect clouds {NO.  That has not been demonstrated.}, cloud formation and the properties of clouds, so the brightness of clouds, specifically how white they are and also how many of them there are. {Nonsense, none of that has been established.  Learn about what is established regarding cloud formation see #11 and #16} Seems these high-energy cosmic rays seemed to particularly influenced low clouds. {It's never been demonstrated.  Their bubble chamber experiment was no demonstration of cloud formation. see #12}

13:10  -  I'll show you the data for that. {Again he doesn't.} 
Now we have to note that the cosmic ray is a bit of a misnomer because they are not "rays" electromagnetic radiation, not photons we're talking about particles mostly atomic nuclei namely protons so almost all solar rays and galactic cosmic rays are protons.  High energy protons moving at high speed, close to light speed, relativistic speeds.  What happens when they impinge on the upper atmosphere is they create a muon shower.  Depending on the energy of the galactic cosmic ray, the muon shower can penetrate right down to the lower atmosphere to the troposphere and {You want to believe} influence cloud formation {But, you have no real evidence.}.  

14:05  -  OK, what is the evidence for all this.  Have a look at the cosmic ray count.  As measured at the earth's surface compared to sunspots.  In other words solar activity, it's the eleven-year solar cycle and you can see they're anti-correlated, so when you got more solar activity, more sunspots, you get less cosmic rays.  In other words that inhibits the cosmic rays from coming into the lower atmosphere, into the troposphere. {Nonsense, the sun inhibits cosmic rays entering the solar system.  Got nothing to do with upper or lower atmosphere on our planet.} 

So you got more solar activity you get less cosmic rays coming into the lower troposphere. So you get less cloud formation, in other words it's a mechanism an amplifying mechanism. {NO!  It's a biased contrived conjecture!} You got less clouds in the lower troposphere, you get more warming. {#13}

{How about more warming creating more evaporation and convection into an air column already saturated with condensation nuclei?  No need for minuscule galactic rays. see #11} 

We can also go back into history we could look at the proxy records for temperature which is ..?.. we can compare that to the solar activity proxy which is 14C got a nice top of carbon.  they make an almost perfect correlation as you can see there. 

"perfect correlation" hardly, besides... 
it's a long way from that 
to demonstrating cosmic rays dictate Earth's climate.

There's no doubt that climate is affected and that temperature is affected by the cosmic ray flux.  {"no doubt" - Think about it, from a very sloppy correlation in some proxy graphs, to such self-certainty.  That's the con artist at work not a serious scientist.}

15:30 - Here's a carbon14 record of the last thousand years which again is proxy record. {see #14} I mean it's not fraudulent like the hockey stick {Now there's a dog whistle.  All disagreeable science get's labeled fraud.  Now that's a real fraud.  see #15}, it's real science here we're talking about here. {The degree of disconnect from reality is amazing}   

It shows all the climate changes that are well known over the last thousand years the
Medieval maximum, the Sporer minimum, Maunder minimum and we've got the Dalton minimum in there you'll see about 1850, and we got the modern maximum, where the sun has reached the highest activity that we've had for the last eleven thousand years. 

So does this: 

16:10 - And all these climate changes were clearly driven by changes in solar activity. {Clearly nothing.  Nothing has been explained, even less demonstrated}  Now, we all know that changes in TSI is not sufficient to cause this huge climate changes so therefore, there has to be a mechanism, there has to be a natural mechanism. {Yeah like radically increasing our atmosphere's insulation component!  Occam's Razor and all that. }  

Also see: 
This is what a scientist sounds like, Dr. Randall on Clouds and such.

No comments: