Talk:Henrik Svensmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Henrik Svensmark falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

[edit] Dispute tag

I have serious problems accepting that the SKY experiment and the original 1997 research have anything to do with each other - i tagged this because i don't have the time right now to correct it. I'll look at it later (tagged rather than delete). --Kim D. Petersen 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Originally, and I believe this is well before 1997, Svensmark, Friis-Christensen et.al. were able to show a correlation between the Sun's activity and the temperature of the Earth. This then led Svensmark to theorize, that if solar activity influenced cosmic ray intensity (well established, I believe), and if cosmic ray intensity influenced cloud formation (not known at that time), and if cloud formation rates influenced Earth surface temperatures (relatively well established, I believe), then the link should be there.

Svensmarks experiment then concentrated on finding out how incident radiation influences formation of water aerosoles in the presence of certain condensation nuclei.

So the link is there, although it is explained rather shortish in the article. I therefore believe that the dispute tag should be removed.

Oz1sej 09:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's a popular account:

• He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier. (The Sunday Times) - February 11, 2007

I should ask my buddy at the British Antarctic Survey about this - I'm sure he reads this paper. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why a popular account is out of place. I'm going to put in the slightly more technical Sunday Times summary of his work, unless Wikipedia has some rule against reporting what scientists are up to when it conflicts with the dominant scientific paradigm. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should be repeated ad nauseam - the science is already described on the page. Nigel Caulder has some claims about Svensmarks research in this book blurb (sunday times), that isn't supported in/by the book (Chilling Stars) - nor from any of Svensmarks research. Book blurbs and other such advertising material is not reliable sources. Caulder is actually quite cautious in the book (as opposed to the earlier book). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Sunday Times description of Svensmark's findings is inaccurate? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Calder (as usual) goes beyond what Svensmark says. He is a fellow Dane, so i'm quite familiar with him - both from Danish TV and radio - as well as from his research. Calder's did this in his other book about Svensmark's research "the Manic Sun" as well. (which is quite funny in retrospect with regards to the conclusions that Calder draws at the time).

But this is not really the issue in this particular case - the "article" is not an article but an advertising blurb from the author - and is not a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further studies

I don't understand the meaning of this section heading. The plain English meaning would seem to point to more work along the same lines as Svensmark's paper and book. You know, like evidence supporting his view, or other non-anthropogenic cause of global warming.

The language of the section is unclear, with this bit

• negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures

... being one of the simpler buzzword phrases being thrown around. I gather that "further studies" is code for critcism or debate or controversy.

It would serve our readers best if we just came right out and stated Svensmark's hypothesis, and what data he offers in support of it.

We could follow that with as much mainstream debunking, disagreement, etc. by opponents.

Basically, isn't he saying that the sun's magnetism caused changes in the intensity of cosmic rays hitting the earth's atmosphere, which in turned caused changes in cloud formation, which in turn affected how much sunlight hit the ground, which (we all know) affects surface air temperature?

If so, then we should maybe put this into the form of bullet point or better yet a diagram. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)