CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change

[Dammy]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/...onfirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/

I’ll have more on this as it develops (updated twice since the original report now), but for the short term, it appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed. The way it is posited to work is that the effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface. Even the IPCC has admitted this in their latest (2007) report:

 

[faethor]

Cool.

Finding out more info is good. CO2 isn't the only factor. Anti-Global Warmists just act like it is. In reality the present state of science indicates it's the present largest factor. We have satellites outside the atmosphere and detection stations on the ground. We should be able to tell how the exposure to cosmic rates is, or is not, changing.

 

[redrumloa]

Cool.

Finding out more info is good. CO2 isn't the only factor. Anti-Global Warmists just act like it is.

Wrong, you mean the AGW people act like it is the only factor. Al Gore would be yelling BULLSHIT at you right now if he was here. Al Gore claims solar output and sun spots have nothing to do with anything, it is 100% CO2.

 

[Robert]

Cosmic Rays Influence Climate Change

Nonsense - there is no such thing as climate change, remember?

It's all a scam to steal your tax dollars?

 

[Robert]

Al Gore would be yelling BULLSHIT at you right now if he was here. Al Gore claims .......

That may or may not be the case but it's frankly irrelevant.

I really don't understand the fascination with Al Gore.

He's not a scientist.
He made an inaccurate (in some respects) film, which has been debunked. (For the record, I still think it a useful film.)
He's not even an expert.

How about addressing what actual scienctists say for a change?

Oh, wait a minute..... I think I've just realised why so many climate-change deniers have such a raging hard-on for Al Gore......

 

[Dammy]

Oh, wait a minute..... I think I've just realised why so many climate-change deniers have such a raging hard-on for Al Gore......

Because they are tired of his Elitist hypocrisy and lies he has been evangelizing about like a failed preacher that he is. His home guzzles on a monthly basis what a dozen average homes uses all year long and then all those private jets he uses. He has the gall to tell us to use less, but it's OK for him to do the opposite? No wonder Tipper dumped that sex crazed poodle, what a loser.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Wrong, you mean the AGW people act like it is the only factor.

There are several factors. Can you think of a way that we could control solar radiance? Can you think of a way we can control cosmic rays? Can you think of a way we can control CO2?

If you are driving a car downhill do you give up on the breaks just because you can't control the steepness of the grade?

 

[redrumloa]

That may or may not be the case but it's frankly irrelevant.

I really don't understand the fascination with Al Gore.

Like it or not, al Gore has been the main promoter for the largest scam in human history.

He's not a scientist.

He made an inaccurate (in some respects) film, which has been debunked. (For the record, I still think it a useful film.)
He's not even an expert.

Yet strangely all across the USA and probably the EU, his propaganda film was being shown to school children as science fact.

How about addressing what actual scienctists say for a change?

No problem. Global Warming is the largest scam in human history. I am glad I could be a help.

Oh, wait a minute..... I think I've just realised why so many climate-change deniers have such a raging hard-on for Al Gore......

Hard-on? I don't get sexually aroused thinking of exposed charlatans, sorry.

 

[Robert]

Because they are tired of his Elitist hypocrisy and lies he has been evangelizing about like a failed preacher that he is. His home guzzles on a monthly basis what a dozen average homes uses all year long and then all those private jets he uses. He has the gall to tell us to use less, but it's OK for him to do the opposite? No wonder Tipper dumped that sex crazed poodle, what a loser.

It's still tilting at windmills though.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

 

[Robert]

".... so far says nothing about climate..."

Yeah, yeah Fluffy, that's all well and good.

But this guy's nothing more than one of the scientists - what about Al Gore?

 

[faethor]

Like it or not, al Gore has been the main promoter for the largest scam in human history.

IMO this is the typical attack the person because the facts aren't on the anti-GW side. Ad hominems only serve to detract from the conservation. They're unfair and unimportant. With these tactics the anti-scientific feel they won because the scientific supports eventually fail to respond. In truth it's because the scientific supports went away as they were tired of trying to fight the wall of ignorance.

 

[redrumloa]

IMO this is the typical attack the person because the facts aren't on the anti-GW side. Ad hominems only serve to detract from the conservation. They're unfair and unimportant. With these tactics the anti-scientific feel they won because the scientific supports eventually fail to respond. In truth it's because the scientific supports went away as they were tired of trying to fight the wall of ignorance.

Sure which science fact? The ones that were dicredited? The ones that turned out to not be peer reviewed after all? The ones that were proven to be a total hoax?

 

[Dammy]

Sure which science fact? The ones that were dicredited? The ones that turned out to not be peer reviewed after all? The ones that were proven to be a total hoax?

It's easy enough, just take a look at their predictions over the past three decades, how many of them have come true? Around ten years ago, in the US Congress, we were told that DC would soon stop having snow and future children would not know the thrill of bob sledding. Decades ago, we were told if we hit 380 PPM in CO2, we would generate a run away global warming. Where is all that Global Warming and why are we seeing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/w...er-coldest-summer-for-nearly-two-decades.html http://www.3news.co.nz/Snow-confirmed-in-Auckland--NIWA/tabid/423/articleID/222254/Default.aspx

I'm still waiting on that Global Cooling I was promised as a child! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Oh well, perhaps before I die, may see it come true if this solar minimum turns into a Maunder Minimum.

 

[faethor]

It's easy enough, just take a look at their predictions over the past three decades, how many of them have come true?

Quite a few. And importantly the big ones - rising oceans, shrinking glaciers, Arctic melting, impact to migration patterns, new animals in areas that previously couldn't support them. And quite a few were off too. For example, we are warming faster than the models predict.

Around ten years ago, in the US Congress, we were told that DC would soon stop having snow and future children would not know the thrill of bob sledding. Decades ago, we were told if we hit 380 PPM in CO2, we would generate a run away global warming.

And the timeframe for these events were not within the decade so the devil is in the details.

I'm still waiting on that Global Cooling I was promised as a child!

An interesting item in the history of science. In the 70s we humans started noticing the recurring patterns on the planet. In the last 40 years we have much, much, more science available. And it's one of the good things of science is it provides a continual skeptical view where it always questions itself.

This is the natural course of science. Science should always be about improving the resolution and understanding. Likewise we see Newton's Law of Gravity supersceeded by Einstein's Law of Gravity. Why? While Newton works it covers less evidence, less cases, and is a lower accuracy than Einstein. And we know there's even problems with Einstein as it doesn't work on the quantum level. -- So are you willing to conclude Gravity is therefore a hoax?

In the 70s we simply did not have the depth of understanding or amount of evidence we have now. Such a comparision equating the two 'conclusions' boarders on the absurb. (And actually I argue there was no 'global cooling' consensus it was noticing that we weren't doing what should be occurring cyclically that helped drive climate research into building a greater depth of understanding. )

 

[faethor]

@Dammy,

Here's a page you might want. The 'evidence' of cooling from the 70s. It's rather meager. (The actual evidence that is, not the page.) http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I'm still waiting on that Global Cooling I was promised as a child!

When you were a child stomach ulcers could not be caused by bacteria because bacteria couldn't possibly survive in that environment.
When you were a child the continents couldn't travel around the globe because that would be ridiculous.
When you were a child no planets had been detected outside of the solar system.
When you were a child the moon had no water.
When you were a child no superconductor could work at the temperature of liquid nitrogen.
When you were a child smallpox still stalked the world.
When you were born no-one had detected the cosmic background radiation.
When you were conceived no human had been to space.
When your parents were children they feared polio.

Why not look back a few thousand years and say that since the best minds of Greece thought that the earth stood still, the fact that they were wrong undermines the heliocentric model too since both views have their foundation in reason.

You sound almost like those types who argue that science must be wrong because it changes and the bible must be right because it never changes. Do you also mistrust digital watches because the numbers are always changing?

 

[redrumloa]

Quite a few. And importantly the big ones - rising oceans, shrinking glaciers, Arctic melting, impact to migration patterns, new animals in areas that previously couldn't support them. And quite a few were off too. For example, we are warming faster than the models predict.

Because nothing you just mentioned ever happened before man, right? 99.9% of all species that ever lived and are now extinct and everyone one of them died because of humans making CO2? Before man there was never a fluctuation in temperatures, to say so is just silly right?

An interesting item in the history of science. In the 70s we humans started noticing the recurring patterns on the planet. In the last 40 years we have much, much, more science available. And it's one of the good things of science is it provides a continual skeptical view where it always questions itself.

This is the natural course of science. Science should always be about improving the resolution and understanding. Likewise we see Newton's Law of Gravity supersceeded by Einstein's Law of Gravity. Why? While Newton works it covers less evidence, less cases, and is a lower accuracy than Einstein. And we know there's even problems with Einstein as it doesn't work on the quantum level. -- So are you willing to conclude Gravity is therefore a hoax?

In the 70s we simply did not have the depth of understanding or amount of evidence we have now. Such a comparision equating the two 'conclusions' boarders on the absurb. (And actually I argue there was no 'global cooling' consensus it was noticing that we weren't doing what should be occurring cyclically that helped drive climate research into building a greater depth of understanding. )

In he 70's they were saying the same thing about the 30's. In the 70's they were so sure of a coming ice age, scientists proposed spreading coal dust on glaciers to promote melting. Why are some so arrogant to think that science in 2050 won't scoff at the ideas floated now about Global Warming?

 

[faethor]

99.9% of all species that ever lived and are now extinct and everyone one of them died because of humans making CO2? Before man there was never a fluctuation in temperatures, to say so is just silly right?

Here's your logic... X caused Y in the past. Y is happening again and therefore it must be X.

Let's use that. It's been demonstrated that increase in CO2 (x) caused an increase in temperatures (y). Temperatures are increasing (y) and therfore it must be CO2 (x). Now we take that CO2 and determine what the sources are of CO2. Turns out man-made and natural CO2 produce different isotypes of CO2. Man-Made types are the fastest increasing and majority of CO2 isotypes. ... So by using your own logic and understanding the composition of X it's fairly straight forward to understand why it's man-made.

Why are some so arrogant to think that science in 2050 won't scoff at the ideas floated now about Global Warming?

Yup science always changes. It's sheer folly to demand science is unchangable before we execute any implementation of that science. For example, we still aren't able to fully model the explosive forces in your diesel. Are you going to stop driving until we can? I think Fluffy is right on here.. Your and Dammy's ideas break down into the concept that Religious books are unchanging therefore better to follow any one of those than build a true understanding and pursue knowledge.

 

[cecilia]

I think it's only fair that all the people who DON'T understand science should Never be allowed the enjoy the benefits.

period.