CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect

[barfo]

http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=10555

And here is one perspective on how it has been corrupted.

Ah, the perspective of a crank. It's so nice to get a break from our resident cranks to read the rantings of a professional crank.

In 2006, I submitted a short manuscript on the thermonuclear ignition of dark galaxies to Astrophysical Journal Letters. I signed the required copyright transfer form, and the manuscript went out for secret ‘peer review’, but it was rejected without any substantive scientific criticism. So I submitted two other brief, but important, manuscripts. [...] Not surprisingly, those manuscripts were rejected without any scientifically valid justification. I complained to the officers of the American Astronomical Society, who never responded, even though the by-laws of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) clearly state: “As a professional society, the AAS must provide an environment that encourages the free expression and exchange of scientific ideas.” In rejecting those manuscripts, the American Astronomical Society hid from its members, from the scientific community, and from U.S. Government science-funding officials, fundamentally new insights about the Universe, including why galaxies have the characteristic appearances they are observed to have [5].

Before he starts whining about his own brilliance not being properly recognized, he does make some useful points about NSF. Anytime there are humans involved, there are going to be human failures. There's no way to get around that until we are replaced by robots. But his persecution complex causes him to make mountains out of molehills.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=10555
And here is one perspective on how it has been corrupted.

Your author calls global warming a debacle, but contradicts himself when he writes

Suppressing and ignoring advances in science can have serious, real-world consequences. The Earth is constantly bombarded by the solar wind, a fully ionized and electrically conducting plasma, heated to about 1,000,000° C. Fortunately, Earth’s self-generated magnetic field deflects the brunt of the solar wind safely around and past our planet, protecting humanity from the Sun’s relentless onslaught. But reversal or demise of the geomagnetic field will doubtlessly be catastrophic, a calamity of unparalleled magnitude for our technologically-dependent civilization.

When the geomagnetic field collapses, vast segments of the population will be without electricity. Electrical power grids will act like uncontrolled generators as the charged-particle flux of the rampaging solar wind sweeps past, inducing into their lines suicidal bursts of electrical current that short-circuit and destroy essential elements of the power grid. Powerful, equipment-wrecking electrical currents will likewise be induced in gas and oil pipelines, causing explosions and fires. Electrical charges will build up on surfaces everywhere and reach staggeringly high potentials at edges and sharp points, posing risks of electrocution and igniting fires. Satellites will no longer function, their electronics fried by the plasma onslaught; there will be widespread failure of both communication and navigation systems. And, even more seriously, the long-term, unknown, but certainly adverse, impact on health will be severe.

Until recently, reversals of the geomagnetic field or its complete demise were thought to be events in the far-distant future and to occur over a long period of time. But that may have changed dramatically.

 

[huevonkiller]

Damn you global warming geniuses got knocked out.

The IPCC's own climate model data suggests catastrophic events are only 3% likely to occur, and even if they do poverty reduction will save lives not carbon caps. You people don't know what argument you want to make.

 

[huevonkiller]

I don't blindly trust either type of scientist more than the other, particularly.

I don't exactly consider medicine to be science. It has a major statistical component to it vs the absolutes of science. Like you inject nicotine in 100 rats and 60% get cancer - it doesn't at all mean that the nicotine causes cancer. It means there's a 60% chance it may help induce it.

Science is e=mc^2.

I see the objective of the AGW crowd to make radical changes to society. It's almost entirely politically or philosophically motivated. Almost, because they're abusing science as the selling point for it.

Take the IPCC, for example. The papers are written by scientists, then reviewed and EDITED by politicians. Even if this weren't true, the dire forecasts in it (like Gore's PowerPoint presentation) just aren't happening.

The reliance upon data models to predict even short term reality flies in the face of reason. They don't work for simple things like a budget, the economy, vehicle safety, the weather... The climate is so ridiculously complex that it can't be modeled in any way that should be taken seriously.

You can't even predict the movements of a hurricane more than a few days out. There climate models ignore that warming and cooling occurs over hundreds of years, not decades.

CERN consists of 8000 elite scientists working in Switzerland. They don't have any anti-warming agenda, neither does NASA's terra satellite, or UN's own IPCC. Even pro-global warming organizations destroy the petty arguments in this thread.

 

[bluefrog]

You can't even predict the movements of a hurricane more than a few days out. There climate models ignore warming and cooling occurs over hundreds of years, not decades.

You're confusing weather and climate.

The IPCC's own climate model data suggests catastrophic events are only 3% likely to occur, and even if they do poverty reduction will save lives not carbon caps. You people don't know what argument you want to make.

Late to the game. Post contributes nothing to the discussion. Try reading the thread before you post next time

 

[bluefrog]

I see the objective of the AGW crowd to make radical changes to society. It's almost entirely politically or philosophically motivated. Almost, because they're abusing science as the selling point for it.

So there is some world-wide secret conspiracy that cuts across national borders, cultures and language barriers to enslave all of mankind in some kind of eco-communist totalitarian regime? (and you call Maris crazy for his 9/11 conspiracy theories!)

And what is objective of the "anti-AGW" crowd?

Take the IPCC, for example. The papers are written by scientists, then reviewed and EDITED by politicians. Even if this weren't true, the dire forecasts in it (like Gore's PowerPoint presentation) just aren't happening.

OK, you're just making stuff up now.

The reliance upon data models to predict even short term reality flies in the face of reason.

...unless the research that relies upon models supports my preconcieved notions. (see your "Gaping Hole" thread you posted several weeks ago.)

The climate is so ridiculously complex that it can't be modeled in any way that should be taken seriously.

Chaotic systems are modeled correctly all the time. The path of Hurricane Irene was predicted very accurately. It all depends on the timescale you are dealing with.

 

[Denny Crane]

So there is some world-wide secret conspiracy that cuts across national borders, cultures and language barriers to enslave all of mankind in some kind of eco-communist totalitarian regime? (and you call Maris crazy for his 9/11 conspiracy theories!)

And what is objective of the "anti-AGW" crowd?

The USA is a rich and prosperous nation. I don't ascribe any one reason as to why any particular group wants to see us be less successful. We're too strong militarily to invade and take our wealth. But we can be duped into giving it all up through treaties, they go for it. A political solution to "the great Satan."

OK, you're just making stuff up now.



...unless the research that relies upon models supports my preconcieved notions. (see your "Gaping Hole" thread you posted several weeks ago.)



Chaotic systems are modeled correctly all the time. The path of Hurricane Irene was predicted very accurately. It all depends on the timescale you are dealing with.

Irene wasn't predicted accurately, but they were close on it's path. The news the following day was about how wrong they were about it's intensity, and how (typical!) it was way overhyped.

I've built a number of computer models and simulations. I am not speaking as a layman about them. I can build an NBA simulation that produces seemingly realistic results using only a few simple formulae. But Derek Rose would shoot a high % and score easily against the Heat. I can continue to refine the model to "fix" those kinds of outcomes, but tomorrow Rose may play the Heat and perform well above his averages and my model would still predict a wrong result. He might do so the next 100 times.

There is a lot if chaos involved that my model might not consider at all. Like Haslem's current injury status is that he's feeling particularly good today - enough to play and play out of his mind. Or that Rose got a bad night's sleep last night. Or a ballboy spills a cup of water on the court, slightly warping the floor in that spot, causing an odd bounce of the ball and a turnover. Or a meteor hitting the stadium canceling the game altogether.

To be something anyone should consider as proof, the model must predict tomorrow's results, next week's results, and so on. Not just the score, but the exact second that a substitution is made for each player, how many touches each gets, how long they have the ball each time, how many dribbles, the angle of the bounce each time, ad infinitum.

Basketball is many many many orders of magnitude easier to model and simulate than the climate. There, you have to literally simulate a butterfly flapping it's wings in China affecting the air molecules around the globe each time, let alone chaotic factors like an asteroid hitting the earth, odd solar activity, and things we cannot conceive of. Like on November 19, the city council in Bend approves widening 100ft of road by 3 inches and the effect of the added warmth caused by that little bit of extra asphalt.

I can make a simple model proving CO2 causes global warming:

Delta T = CO2 * X

As long as X is positive, my model "proves" what I want it to!

Get it?

 

[jlprk]

I've built a number of computer models and simulations. I am not speaking as a layman about them.

Ever since supercomputers, science has relied upon computer models. If you don't believe they are reasonably accurate, why do you make them? When you put out a product you don't believe in, isn't that unethical?

 

[barfo]

I've built a number of computer models and simulations. I am not speaking as a layman about them. [...]

To be something anyone should consider as proof, the model must predict tomorrow's results, next week's results, and so on. Not just the score, but the exact second that a substitution is made for each player, how many touches each gets, how long they have the ball each time, how many dribbles, the angle of the bounce each time, ad infinitum.

Basketball is many many many orders of magnitude easier to model and simulate than the climate. There, you have to literally simulate a butterfly flapping it's wings in China affecting the air molecules around the globe each time, let alone chaotic factors like an asteroid hitting the earth, odd solar activity, and things we cannot conceive of. Like on November 19, the city council in Bend approves widening 100ft of road by 3 inches and the effect of the added warmth caused by that little bit of extra asphalt.

Since you are talking about proof, you are indeed speaking as a layman.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Since you are talking about proof, you are indeed speaking as a layman.

barfo

Proof, justification, reason to believe, whatever.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ever since supercomputers, science has relied upon computer models. If you don't believe they are reasonably accurate, why do you make them? When you put out a product you don't believe in, isn't that unethical?

An NBA simulation is good fun for all. It's a different thing to claim it predicts the future, and I wouldn't bet in Vegas based on the program's results.

Like I wrote a number of times, if models were so good, obama's economic advisors wouldn't gave been so wrong, recovery summer would be a reality, and there'd be no need for crash dummies in Detroit.

 

[barfo]

It's a different thing to claim it predicts the future

Which no one has done, so you are arguing against a strawman.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Which no one has done, so you are arguing against a strawman.

barfo

Wrong.

 

[bluefrog]

The USA is a rich and prosperous nation. I don't ascribe any one reason as to why any particular group wants to see us be less successful. We're too strong militarily to invade and take our wealth. But we can be duped into giving it all up through treaties, they go for it. A political solution to "the great Satan."

So we've gone from "follow the money" to taking down "the great Satan". OK, I'll play.

I find it ridiculous to think academic scientists in the U.S. would bury their own observations just to bring the country down and subject us all to the will of jealous nations.

It would take a conspiracy of unprecedented scale to pull something like this off and that's just crazy talk.

 

[Denny Crane]

So we've gone from "follow the money" to taking down "the great Satan". OK, I'll play.

I find it ridiculous to think academic scientists in the U.S. would bury their own observations just to bring the country down and subject us all to the will of jealous nations.

It would take a conspiracy of unprecedented scale to pull something like this off and that's just crazy talk.

You're the one who thinks there must be some conspiracy.

I see it as a form of piling on, once someone saw a "good thing."

 

[bluefrog]

You're the one who thinks there must be some conspiracy.

I see it as a form of piling on, once someone saw a "good thing."

Which one? the "follow the money" or the taking down "the great Satan"?

 

[Denny Crane]

Which no one has done, so you are arguing against a strawman.

barfo

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

11. What about the future?

Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, then certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future.

The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

 

[barfo]

Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'.

It's a different thing to claim it predicts the future

Do you not see the difference between saying something is 'the most useful tool for gauging future changes' and saying something 'predicts the future'?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you not see the difference between saying something is 'the most useful tool for gauging future changes' and saying something 'predicts the future'?

barfo

Read the sentence starting with the word "projections."

 

[barfo]

Read the sentence starting with the word "projections."

Oh, the part you didn't bold was what you wanted me to pay attention to?

What's your point? Do you not know the difference between projection and prediction?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh, the part you didn't bold was what you wanted me to pay attention to?

What's your point? Do you not know the difference between projection and prediction?

barfo

If the models are their best means, and they are making dire warnings about future rise of oceans, etc., then they are using the models as proof of their assertions.

 

[barfo]

If the models are their best means, and they are making dire warnings about future rise of oceans, etc., then they are using the models as proof of their assertions.

No, that does not logically follow.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Apparently liberals need schooling for economics and logic.

 

[maxiep]

My position is that items out of our control are the primary driver of global warmth or cooling. We make some difference, but it's overwhelmed by systems we play no role in. All of that being said, I'm not against being prudent to limit our impact, I just don't want to destroy our economy over it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

That's basically my position...if the science states that man-made sources really are destroying the planet at a rate greater than "natural" sources, then we need to shut China and India down right the heck now. Forget electric cars and solar panels, what about exponential increase in coal consumption, air pollution, sewage, etc.?

 

[barfo]

Apparently liberals need schooling for economics and logic.

Apparently you are unable to support your claim, and have to fall back on non-specific accusations.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Apparently you are unable to support your claim, and have to fall back on non-specific accusations.

barfo

I supported my position with the NASA link. Misreading what it says and having the logic fault is your problem.

 

[barfo]

That's basically my position...if the science states that man-made sources really are destroying the planet at a rate greater than "natural" sources, then we need to shut China and India down right the heck now. Forget electric cars and solar panels, what about exponential increase in coal consumption, air pollution, sewage, etc.?

I agree with you - although it isn't clear exactly how we are going to shut down China and India if we decide that needs doing. Nuke them out of existence?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I supported my position with the NASA link. Misreading what it says and having the logic fault is your problem.

What we have been debating today is your claim about 'predicting the future'. You've failed to present any evidence that any scientists ever said they could predict the future, so your statement was in fact a strawman.

Next?

barfo

 

[Masbee]

What we have been debating today is your claim about 'predicting the future'. You've failed to present any evidence that any scientists ever said they could predict the future, so your statement was in fact a strawman.

Next?

barfo

Politicians and the UN claim "the science is settled" and quote many scientists to back their assertion that we must make multiple TRILLION dollar changes / charges to the economy to avert imminent disaster.

How are they making the claim the science is settled? What are the scientists they are hiding behind saying? What the hell was Gore talking about with his Inconvenient Truth?

To laypeople, they are all predicting imminent doom. If you want to hide behind semantics, fine. But unless credible people DO IN FACT predict really fucking bad shit happening in the future, no changes will occur. Nor, should they.