CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30600
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:01 pm
 


<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=31939" target="_blank">Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/20-environmental" target="_blank">Environmental</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=hurley_108" target="_blank">hurley_108</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-04-04 08:11:39


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 St. Louis Blues
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3915
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:01 pm
 


More drivel from the Al Gore fanatics...and probably funded by those backing Al Gore's political agenda of globalization...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:19 am
 


That theory was on its last legs anyway. This will probably be the end of it.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:28 am
 


Putting things in simplistic terms:

Svenmark's research indicates that when solar activity is low cosmic radiation is high causing low clouds.

These genius have found that when solar radiation is low cloudiness increases proving no link to clouds and solar activity.

Basically they shifted ground and misrepresented the initial research.

However, this is merely an understanding of climate mechanism. CO2 AGW was just misrepresenting an EL NINO as an unexpected, unprecedented, massive warming.
There was no CO2 causation
The EL NINO is a regular event
The El NINO warming was coincidental with other regular cycles causing a slight increase in temperature.

Using AGW scientific method---storks bring babies.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:37 am
 


I don't know Sasquatch. I had to read what they were saying a few times, but I think they may have got it right. They said it back to front in a confusing way in the paper, but after a few readings it sounded like they were saying the right thing.

Doesn't matter though. This has been happening since cosmic ray theory began. Organized resistance. Every few months a new paper comes out claiming to be "the final nail in the coffin". The assumption in the press release is always this critique of cosmic ray theory is all rock hard science, and there is no possible rebuttal. A couple of weeks later though the solar scientists start replying, and it turns out the science wasn't as rock hard solid as was first claimed. This is Wolfendale and Sloan's second kick at the can. They've attacked cosmic ray theory before. There was another study a couple of months ago by Lockwood and Frohlich that was supposed to be the only study ever needed to destroy cosmic ray theory forever. Supposedly Svensmark was afraid to rebut, because the evidence was so solid. In truth it turned out it's mistake to come to conclusions such as "no possible reply" based on the first day the attack study comes out. Svensmark did reply weeks later - Svensmark's reply to Lockwood and Frohlich

So this study just hit the internet yesterday. If it matters scientists like Svensmark, and Nir Shaviv will be responding to it.

I always find it interesting, for a theory that's not supposed to have any credibility to it, it sure seems cosmic ray theory attracts a lot attention, and effort to discredit. Why is that?


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 264
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:54 am
 


stemmer stemmer:
More drivel from the Al Gore fanatics...and probably funded by those backing Al Gore's political agenda of globalization...


And here I thought all the tin foil hats were used on the Left side of the political spectrum...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:07 am
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I don't know Sasquatch. I had to read what they were saying a few times, but I think they may have got it right. They said it back to front in a confusing way in the paper, but after a few readings it sounded like they were saying the right thing.

Doesn't matter though. This has been happening since cosmic ray theory began. Organized resistance. Every few months a new paper comes out claiming to be "the final nail in the coffin". The assumption in the press release is always this critique of cosmic ray theory is all rock hard science, and there is no possible rebuttal. A couple of weeks later though the solar scientists start replying, and it turns out the science wasn't as rock hard solid as was first claimed. This is Wolfendale and Sloan's second kick at the can. They've attacked cosmic ray theory before. There was another study a couple of months ago by Lockwood and Frohlich that was supposed to be the only study ever needed to destroy cosmic ray theory forever. Supposedly Svensmark was afraid to rebut, because the evidence was so solid. In truth it turned out it's mistake to come to conclusions such as "no possible reply" based on the first day the attack study comes out. Svensmark did reply weeks later - Svensmark's reply to Lockwood and Frohlich

So this study just hit the internet yesterday. If it matters scientists like Svensmark, and Nir Shaviv will be responding to it.

I always find it interesting, for a theory that's not supposed to have any credibility to it, it sure seems cosmic ray theory attracts a lot attention, and effort to discredit. Why is that?


I think the cosmic ray theory got a lot of attention and credence. I've seen it pop up on here as an article of discussion at least a dozen times over the last few years. t was discussed in the IPCC assessment reports. As for "organized resistance"--what does that mean? Clearly there is "organized reasistance" on both sides of the issue. So what? The theory of the correlation between cosmic ray incidence and low cloud cover is either true or it is not true.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:10 pm
 


There's definitely resistance to global warming theory. There are attempts from time to time to organize such as the recent conference in New York.

When I mention organized resistance to cosmic ray theory, I'm more interested in the hypocrisy of it. The official agitprop is there is no relevance, or scientific foundation to CRT (something also in the IPCC report as I recall). My point is if it's irrelevant why is there so much resistance to it, and why does the GW favourable portion of the media (sometimes referred to as MSM) feel inclined to misrepresent the science? Every time one of these half baked studies comes out critiquing Cosmic Ray Theory, that study is announced as if the premise of CRT has been destroyed, and no longer need be considered, yet a couple of months later another critical study comes out, and the same announcements are made. It's been that way for years. In each case victory is declared, and we are told we can go home. The announcement of victory is made on the day of the press release, before anybody has a chance to review the study. Those studies are reviewed though, and almost always (in fact I would say always) revealed to be lacking in solid science. That part of the story however never makes it to the mainstream so I'll offer it below.

The data is massaged as was the case with L&F when they made the puzzling transition from Acrim to PMOD, and quote unquote smoothed the data.

A letter to a rarely read journal is presented as serious science as was the most recent case (the one mentioned here).

Key elements of the theory, and data are ignored.

Mucho Cherry-picking of data.

Wanna see what I'm talking about? Here's some critiques of the critiques.

Letter challenging the BBC on their tendency to propagandize the issue in reference to Wolfendale and Sloan

SPPI critiquing Lockwood and Frohlich

Joseph D'Aleo crtiques L&F

Ken Gregoy critiques L&F

WarwichHughes on L&F

Svensmark's reply to L&F

Lubos MotL has one on Nir Shaviv's reply, but you've already seen that one. It's the one that has to do with ocean time lags.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:45 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
There's definitely resistance to global warming theory. There are attempts from time to time to organize such as the recent conference in New York.

When I mention organized resistance to cosmic ray theory, I'm more interested in the hypocrisy of it. The official agitprop is there is no relevance, or scientific foundation to CRT (something also in the IPCC report as I recall). My point is if it's irrelevant why is there so much resistance to it, and why does the GW favourable portion of the media (sometimes referred to as MSM) feel inclined to misrepresent the science? Every time one of these half baked studies comes out critiquing Cosmic Ray Theory, that study is announced as if the premise of CRT has been destroyed, and no longer need be considered, yet a couple of months later another critical study comes out, and the same announcements are made. It's been that way for years. In each case victory is declared, and we are told we can go home. The announcement of victory is made on the day of the press release, before anybody has a chance to review the study. Those studies are reviewed though, and almost always (in fact I would say always) revealed to be lacking in solid science. That part of the story however never makes it to the mainstream so I'll offer it below.

The data is massaged as was the case with L&F when they made the puzzling transition from Acrim to PMOD, and quote unquote smoothed the data.

A letter to a rarely read journal is presented as serious science as was the most recent case (the one mentioned here).

Key elements of the theory, and data are ignored.

Mucho Cherry-picking of data.

Wanna see what I'm talking about? Here's some critiques of the critiques.

Letter challenging the BBC on their tendency to propagandize the issue in reference to Wolfendale and Sloan

SPPI critiquing Lockwood and Frohlich

Joseph D'Aleo crtiques L&F

Ken Gregoy critiques L&F

WarwichHughes on L&F

Svensmark's reply to L&F

Lubos MotL has one on Nir Shaviv's reply, but you've already seen that one. It's the one that has to do with ocean time lags.


Well, it's one thing to critque, another to have a peer-reviewed paper accetped in a fairly respected journal. We'll see if these rebuttals show up in any of the major journals. Frankly, I got a new job lately, so I no longer have the time for recreational interest in this field (which is why I don't post so much these days). At one time I would have read all the material about cosmic rays, but not anymore. Besides, the the whole thing is so muddy now with teams of science-savvy "publicists" and professional bloggers on both sides, pens in hand, ready to instantly rebut the the minutest perceived gain by either side. This cosmic ray thing is a case in point--it's not the entire case for either side lies in this research--there may be anthrpogenic warming even if the cosmic ray thing is true and there may not be even if its false.

Given that, I'm casting my lot with the science. Science has been wrong before, has suffered mass cases of "groupthink" or been corrupted by a few mandarins wiht power at the top of the academic hierarchy, but scientific consensus (or sizeable majority if you don't like the word "consensus") is right more often than its wrong. I guess we'll know for sure in about thirty years.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:39 pm
 


Zipperfish
$1:
Science has been wrong before, has suffered mass cases of "groupthink" or been corrupted by a few mandarins wiht power at the top of the academic hierarchy, but scientific consensus (or sizeable majority if you don't like the word "consensus") is right more often than its wrong. I guess we'll know for sure in about thirty years.


Yes I would agree....
However it makes one suspicious when such obvious tripe as the "hockey stick" gets such endorsement(although shortlived) and the 1998 hoptest year as well (also shortlived). I'm still trying desperately to figure out how the consensus figures Antarctica is melting at -30C and below.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:47 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Well, it's one thing to critque, another to have a peer-reviewed paper accetped in a fairly respected journal.


But if that's the case I'm not sure I understand why you're cheerleading for the Wolfendale and Sloan thing this thread concerns. As I understand it it's a letter to a little known journal. Is that not correct? If it is does that make it peer reviewed? If it does peer review is a joke.

$1:
Given that, I'm casting my lot with the science. Science has been wrong before, has suffered mass cases of "groupthink" or been corrupted by a few mandarins wiht power at the top of the academic hierarchy, but scientific consensus (or sizeable majority if you don't like the word "consensus") is right more often than its wrong. I guess we'll know for sure in about thirty years.


1. Consensus wouldn't matter. Science is not a popularity contest.

2. As you've been shown many times this consensus you speak of does not exist in the form you'd like to suggest it does.

3. Let's take a look at some of the scientists you would choose to ignore who believe, or have believed (Fairbridge died a couple of years ago) in the importance of solar influence on climate - something the IPCC tends to undervalue.

Rhodes Fairbridge "of Columbia University, a giant in science over much of the last century whose accomplishments are perhaps unsurpassed for their breadth, depth, and volume. This one man authored or co-authored 100 scientific books and more than 1,000 scientific papers, he edited the Benchmarks in Geology series (more than 90 volumes in print) and was general editor of the Encyclopaedias of the Earth Sciences. He edited eight major encyclopedias of specialized scientific papers in the atmospheric sciences and astrogeology; geomorphology; geochemistry and the earth sciences; geology, sedimentology, paleontology, oceanography and, not least, climatology.'

He is also responsible for the Fairbridge curve "so named in derision because it offended the conventional wisdom - is now widely accepted."


Jasper Kirkby and CERN- CERN is the place they invented the internet (yeah, OK the Word Wide Web). They think enough of Jasper Kirkby's CLOUD project they've assigned space for it on their Large Hadron Collider. Basically "the CLOUD project will use a high-energy particle beam from an accelerator to closely duplicate cosmic rays found in the atmosphere." It involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists.

Scafetta and West wrote some paper I'm always hearing about whenever I'm reading about this kind of stuff. Nicola Scafetta is a research associate in the Duke University physics department.Bruce West is chief scientist in the mathematical and
information science directorate,US Army Research Office,in Research Triangle Park,North Carolina.


Sami Solanki"is director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany. Previously, he was appointed professor of astronomy at the University of Oulu in Finland in 1998 and Minnaert Professor at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands in 1999. Among his research interests are solar physics, the physics of cool stars, radiative transfer and astronomical tests of theories of gravity. Dr. Solanki obtained his doctorate from the ETH in Zurich in 1987."

Henrik Svensmark "Henrik Svensmark is director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI). Previously, Dr. Svensmark was head of the sunclimate group at DSRI. He has held post doctoral positions in physics at University California Berkeley, Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute. In 1997, Dr Svensmark received the Knud Hojgaard Anniversary Research Prize and in 2001 the Energy-E2 Research Prize.

Habibullo Abdussamatov "born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad.

He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies."


Nir Shaviv astrophysicist. One of Israel's top young award winning scientists.

Antonino Zichichi "Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna, has published over 800 scientific papers and 10 books, some of which have opened new avenues in subnuclear physics. He has received numerous awards and honorary degrees from academic institutions around the world, and is the subject of seven books published by others about his accomplishments. He founded and directs the Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture, an organization dedicated to voluntary scientific service, the elimination of secret laboratories, and scientific freedom."

This is the guy credited with the discovery of nuclear antimatter.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 104
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:13 am
 


stemmer stemmer:
More drivel from the Al Gore fanatics...and probably funded by those backing Al Gore's political agenda of globalization...


Maybe, maybe not, all scientists need money from somewhere and in my view it's better when they get the money from someone who does share my point of view.

"Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays"

Never belived it was. Even if it was true it indirectly admited that there is endeed a climate changing process, just that by blaming cosmic rays it's a good way to wash your hands of something that in end affects each and every one of us.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:00 am
 


No skeptic, or sane person for that matter thinks climate change doesn't exist. At least none I know of. I can't even think of a skeptic scientist off the top of my head who doesn't think there was some recent warming. (Although some question the accuracy of the measurements, and even if it's possible to describe a global temperature, and others suggest the warming may have stopped). Many even acknowledge a CO2 forcing element. It might even be most who acknowledge that. What they question is stuff like how much? Is it negated by natural or other feedbacks? How big a part do natural causes of climate change play? Is there any real evidence for a coming human caused climate catastrophe of warming? Is the science offered in support of the theory for anthropogenic causes creating warming that leads inevitably to a crisis any good.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:05 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
But if that's the case I'm not sure I understand why you're cheerleading for the Wolfendale and Sloan thing this thread concerns. As I understand it it's a letter to a little known journal. Is that not correct? If it is does that make it peer reviewed? If it does peer review is a joke.


I'm not cheerleading it at all. I didn't post this topic. It was kind of a novel idea originally. I understand that a serious blow was delat to this theory a year or two ago, and this latest paper adds to it. According to good old wiki Environmental Reserach Letters, the publication in which Sloan and Wolfendale's paper appeared, is peer reviewed.

$1:
1. Consensus wouldn't matter. Science is not a popularity contest.


No it isn't, but the more scientists working in relevant fields who agree, the less likely the chance of errors, in my opinion. The fact that there are alos many scietnists working to show that global warming is not anthrpogenic is a good thing--it'll strengthen the science in the final analysis.

$1:
2. As you've been shown many times this consensus you speak of does not exist in the form you'd like to suggest it does.


And as I've posted many times, I think that the great majority of scientists working in relevant fields do subscribe to anthropogenic warming. I've provided evidence to back this claim. You don't buy it. That's fine.

$1:
3. Let's take a look at some of the scientists you would choose to ignore who believe, or have believed (Fairbridge died a couple of years ago) in the importance of solar influence on climate - something the IPCC tends to undervalue.


I'm not ignoring them. I'm just not favouring their conclusions at this point. I've got a great deal of respect for many sceptics--for instance Richard Lindzen and Michael McKitrick.

I'll admit to a fairly simplistic view of the matter: the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, we are pumping several billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and carbon dioxide is a gas that absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum (a greenhouse gas). Not too surprising then you might see a measurable change in global average temperatures, especially since the temperature rise does not correlate well wiht solar irraidance (easily the largest factor in our temp).


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:36 pm
 


But then the gentle warming (exagerated) ended with the EL NINO a decade back is of not consequence? EL NINO and LA NINA were rejuvenated to explain away this past cold winter. Yep! that's the ticket!!!!


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.