The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Science

The Other Climate Theory (That Uses Actual Science)

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#1New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 15:42:25
If Al Gore hears about this, I'm sure I'll be branded a racist along with other human caused global warming skeptics, but often the Truth is the most painful for those on the other side of the Truth.

The Other Climate Theory.

The theory has now moved from the corners of climate skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.

"Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995,

"Mr. Svensmark declines entirely to guess why CERN took so long, noting only that 'more generally in the climate community that is so sensitive, sometimes science goes into the background.'

" 'In 2006 we had our first results: We had demonstrated the mechanism' of cosmic rays enhancing cloud formation. The IPCC's 2007 report all but dismissed the theory.

" 'But this has been something that most climate scientists would not be associated with. I remember another researcher saying to me years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays and climate was it that it was a really bad career move.' "


BINGO!
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#2New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 15:49:34
Quote:
But while the cosmic-ray theory has been ridiculed from the start by those who subscribe to the anthropogenic-warming theory, both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human activity is contributing to climate change. All they question is its importance relative to other, natural factors.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#3New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 16:36:43
Yeah, but it also says,

"In 1997 he decided that "the best way to settle it would be to use the CERN particle beam as an artificial source of cosmic rays and reconstruct an artificial atmosphere in the lab." He predicted to reporters at the time that, based on Mr. Svensmark's paper, the theory would "probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole" of 20th-century warming."

The "whole" wouldn't allow for any human caused global warming.

What they're doing here is walking on eggshells to get and keep their funding and facilities at CERN. The previous year:

"They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, "everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time." He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely na´ve and irresponsible."

It says a lot that they went from being "extremely na´ve and irresponsible" (In the opinion of, of all organizations, the IPCC!--the devil himself) to getting the funding and facilities at CERN to run their experiments.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#4New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 20:00:12
Bump
El_Tino On August 10, 2020
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#5New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 20:10:41
Ok, suppose that cosmic rays from sunspots lead to more cloud formation.

So what? What implications does this have for the idea that CO2 causes global warming? Do you deny that many factors can influence the climate?

Show me some actual science, please.

Saying this disproves global warming is like saying that because alcohol causes car crashes that all car crashes involve alcohol.
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#6New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 20:26:40
@El_Tino Said

Ok, suppose that cosmic rays from sunspots lead to more cloud formation.

So what? What implications does this have for the idea that CO2 causes global warming? Do you deny that many factors can influence the climate?

Show me some actual science, please.

Saying this disproves global warming is like saying that because alcohol causes car crashes that all car crashes involve alcohol.



https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

Here is the actual article.
El_Tino On August 10, 2020
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#7New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 20:48:47


I don't see the relationship.
El_Tino On August 10, 2020
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#8New Post! Sep 07, 2011 @ 20:58:28
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#9New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 16:30:24
@El_Tino Said

Ok, suppose that cosmic rays from sunspots lead to more cloud formation.

So what? What implications does this have for the idea that CO2 causes global warming? Do you deny that many factors can influence the climate?


Absolutely not, but CO2, particularly the man-made portion, is insignificant. And the cosmic rays are coming from the galaxy and being blocked to varying degrees by solar activity.

Quote:
Show me some actual science, please.

Global Warming, a closer look

See particularly Table 4a.

Quote:
Saying this disproves global warming is like saying that because alcohol causes car crashes that all car crashes involve alcohol.


You're condemning the science before the experiment has been performed. Very unscientific. All we have at this point is preliminary.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#10New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 17:11:00
@El_Tino Said



I don't see the relationship.


Fig 1.a drops the other shoe
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#11New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 17:13:08
Ah, I forgot about the "scientific theories that agree with my political position use actual science and those that disagree use fradulent science" thing.
drman321 On December 28, 2013




, Florida
#12New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 17:24:53
@El_Tino Said



I don't see the relationship.



Read the article again Tino. It posits that less solar activity will increase our average global temperature. You have it backwards. The graph you posted shows exactly the relationship we would expect to see if these cosmic rays were having an effect.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#13New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 18:52:09
@drman321 Said

Read the article again Tino. It posits that less solar activity will increase our average global temperature. You have it backwards. The graph you posted shows exactly the relationship we would expect to see if these cosmic rays were having an effect.


My link from above (that didn't work): So yes, the theory they're trying to test at CERN is that low sunspot activity allows more gamma rays in to seed more clouds.
NASA sunspot activity prediction

Something to keep in mind is that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but condensed water, droplets forming clouds, reflects sunlight back into space.
boxerdc On December 18, 2012

Deleted



,
#14New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 18:59:47


Please explain why you changed your stance from gamma rays to sunspot activity?

Do you think that sunspots are the only source?

Because if you do, then, as with everything else you think, you're wrong.
El_Tino On August 10, 2020
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#15New Post! Sep 08, 2011 @ 19:15:44
@ThePainefulTruth Said

Absolutely not, but CO2, particularly the man-made portion, is insignificant. And the cosmic rays are coming from the galaxy and being blocked to varying degrees by solar activity.


Global Warming, a closer look

See particularly Table 4a.


What about table 4a? Without the greenhouse effect earth would be freezing over. We're interested in what's above the natural baseline here.

Quote:
You're condemning the science before the experiment has been performed. Very unscientific. All we have at this point is preliminary.


I'm not condemning anything except your belief that there can only be one variable that influences the climate. When CO2 levels were fairly low, prior to 1980, solar activity does seem to influence climate according to some chart's I've seen.




Yeah, in 1980 they start going in opposite directions, and that's the same time that CO2 increases dramatically.

@drman321 Said

Read the article again Tino. It posits that less solar activity will increase our average global temperature. You have it backwards. The graph you posted shows exactly the relationship we would expect to see if these cosmic rays were having an effect.


Not quite " During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth." More cosmic rays = more clouds = lower temps, so more solar activity = less cosmic rays = less clouds = higher temps, according to this theory.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Mon Jan 09, 2012 @ 05:22
11 1492
New posts   News & Current Events
Sat Oct 22, 2011 @ 05:20
8 974
New posts   News & Current Events
Wed Nov 24, 2010 @ 04:37
35 4188
New posts   Pics & Videos
Mon Feb 22, 2010 @ 11:52
16 1988
New posts   Politics
Wed Oct 14, 2009 @ 08:42
34 2231