CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Masbee said:
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.
Click to expand...

One needs to make the distinction between scientists speaking about science on the one hand, and politicians, laypeople, Al Gore, etc on the other hand. The latter category is likely to exaggerate, use hyperbole, and ignore caveats and subtleties, as they do with every subject.

Scientists DO IN FACT predict really fucking bad shit happening in the future. They do not, however, guarantee it. They merely think, at present, that it is more likely than not, based on our current knowledge, which is admittedly incomplete.

If you want to wait for "proof", you'll have to wait a very long time, and at that point, it will be too late to do anything about it.

I'm personally not sure that we should in fact do anything about climate change right now. I'm not sure we have the remedies figured out, even if we have diagnosed the disease correctly. But I am sure that attacking the scientists studying the problem is a really, really bad approach. Killing the messenger will not help.

The question that is worthy of debate is what, if anything, should be done given our current understanding (and the uncertainty of that understanding).

barfo
 
bluefrog said:
You're confusing weather and climate.
Click to expand...

You have some real reading comprehension problems. You aren't measuring Climate.

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

Dude stop, it is ok to admit you don't know what these computer models are measuring.
 
Masbee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is pretty much it.

I love seeing Bluefrog get all depressed when the UN owns him. The truth of the matter is, even if anthropogenic climate change is real, we are not addressing how to "solve" it. More people will benefit from warmer climates anyway, what a bunch of radical banter from the left.
 
Last edited:
barfo said:
One needs to make the distinction between scientists speaking about science on the one hand, and politicians, laypeople, Al Gore, etc on the other hand. The latter category is likely to exaggerate, use hyperbole, and ignore caveats and subtleties, as they do with every subject.

Scientists DO IN FACT predict really fucking bad shit happening in the future. They do not, however, guarantee it. They merely think, at present, that it is more likely than not, based on our current knowledge, which is admittedly incomplete.

If you want to wait for "proof", you'll have to wait a very long time, and at that point, it will be too late to do anything about it.

I'm personally not sure that we should in fact do anything about climate change right now. I'm not sure we have the remedies figured out, even if we have diagnosed the disease correctly. But I am sure that attacking the scientists studying the problem is a really, really bad approach. Killing the messenger will not help.

The question that is worthy of debate is what, if anything, should be done given our current understanding (and the uncertainty of that understanding).

barfo
Click to expand...

I have a computer model that suggests you might get hit by a car tomorrow, the next day, or the next.... Maybe you should call in sick so you don't get hit by that car.
 
Denny Crane said:
I have a computer model that suggests you might get hit by a car tomorrow, the next day, or the next.... Maybe you should call in sick so you don't get hit by that car.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is.

If all your computer model says is that the probability of getting hit is greater than zero on any given day, well, I already knew that and your model contributes nothing.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Not sure what your point is.

If all your computer model says is that the probability of getting hit is greater than zero on any given day, well, I already knew that and your model contributes nothing.

barfo
Click to expand...

Not only does my model project you might get hit by a car, but the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more likely it is you do get hit by that car.

I judge from your response that you are starting to get it.
 
Denny Crane said:
Not only does my model project you might get hit by a car, but the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more likely it is you do get hit by that car.

I judge from your response that you are starting to get it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm beginning to get that you don't have anything important to say :)

barfo
 
More drama in the science world:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.

The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

I stand behind the science contained in the paper”
​
End Quote Dr Roy Spencer University of Alabama

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.

"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.

"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."
Heated debate
The paper became a cause celebre in "sceptical" circles through its claim that mainstream climate models inflated temperature projections through misunderstanding the role of clouds in the climate system and the rate at which the Earth radiated heat into space......
Click to expand...
 
The U.S. just wasted a trillion dollars on homeland security. Just putting barriers in front of government buildings cost over a hundred billion dollars.

This was done because the right-wingers in charge had a model in their heads that predicted the future. The model said that we will be attacked.

If the country can afford that, it can afford spending the same on the consensus of scientific models predicting a much, much bigger attack from rising temperatures.

I would like to see more articles detailing cost estimates. I don't believe it would cost trillions to have higher standards for factories and cars, especially the new ones. Higher standards for new ones, in which nothing has to be modified, would be essentially free.
 
Now that conservatives oppose predicting the future because it might be wrong, you guys will no doubt close down Homeland Security, the Defense Dept, intelligence agencies, end torture because how can you be sure the victims will return to fighting, and stop all technology because how can you be sure it will always work?

Denny will close this board because the profitable model in his head just might be wrong.
 
It is a fact that you support noisy statistical models that measure only a few years. That's not "climate" and that is a bad analysis.

CERN's experiment and premise are different than the usual garbage you support. And I attacked your beliefs on multiple levels that you refuse to address.

bluefrog said:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

Game over. Leave the science stuff to the adults
Click to expand...

Eh? That didn't address much, you just went on a tangent.
 
Last edited:
huevonkiller said:
It is a fact that you support noisy statistical models that measure only a few years. That's not "climate" and that is a bad analysis.
Click to expand...
I haven't specifically supported any model.
huevonkiller said:
CERN's experiment and premise are different than the usual garbage you support. And I attacked your beliefs on multiple levels that you refuse to address.
Click to expand...
What beliefs have you ascribed to me? I'll do my best to defend the the viewpoints you assume I have.
huevonkiller said:
Eh? That didn't address much, you just went on a tangent.
Click to expand...
Two sentences does not a tangent make

That link was actually the same study that Denny posted. I just wanted to prove a point that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's a shame, too because it's an excellent study. We don't understand clouds very well at all and Kirby's research shed some light on how they form. You should give it a read
 
I found the last sentence or two of the abstract to be contradictory. The effect is huge, but it's not huge.
 
Kinda OT, but I saw the NASA scientist who measured no global warming from the satellites. He was on a Science Channel show. Turns out he's the imaging specialist for the New Horizons probe.
 
Denny Crane said:
Kinda OT, but I saw the NASA scientist who measured no global warming from the satellites. He was on a Science Channel show. Turns out he's the imaging specialist for the New Horizons probe.
Click to expand...

That is unusual because there is a good amount of evidence pointing to a warming planet (rising global average temps, shrinking glaciers, shrinking ice caps, etc...)

What was the time span he was looking at?
 
I'm not claiming this article is any more factual than the one Denny posted. I haven't read either one, frankly (I mean the underlying journal articles - I have read the press articles). But since I'm pretty sure Denny is too busy to post this one, I'll take care of it for him.

A study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters disproves recent claims that clouds are the root cause of climate change.

Based on a 10-year study of El Nino and La Nina cycles, Andrew Dessler, atmospheric sciences professor at the Texas A&M University, says clouds act primarily as a feedback mechanism that amplifies warming from human activity.

""The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing," Dessler said.
Click to expand...

barfo
 
barfo said:
I'm not claiming this article is any more factual than the one Denny posted. I haven't read either one, frankly (I mean the underlying journal articles - I have read the press articles). But since I'm pretty sure Denny is too busy to post this one, I'll take care of it for him.



barfo
Click to expand...

A climate study covering a 10 year period in Earth's history is hardly compelling.
 
Denny Crane said:
A climate study covering a 10 year period in Earth's history is hardly compelling.
Click to expand...

Oh, you think clouds work differently in other time periods? Maybe we've had bad clouds this last 10 years, but once the good clouds return all will be well?

barfo
 
barfo said:
Oh, you think clouds work differently in other time periods? Maybe we've had bad clouds this last 10 years, but once the good clouds return all will be well?

barfo
Click to expand...

Wrong questions.

The data and observations for this ten year period can easily not match those of other periods.

Especially during the big chill years of the middle ages.

Besides that, there's been cooling the past ten years. Data from the prior ten years might becalmed different.
 
But a few physicists weren't worrying about Al Gore in the 1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or "cosmic rays," whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.
Click to expand...

The topic was brought up in another thread but not discussed in much detail.

If cosmic rays are affecting cloud cover and raising the temperature of the earth to levels that inhospitable to humans should we intervene somehow to stop it?
 
It is interesting. Supposedly the earth's magnetic field changes from time to time, even swapping the poles. On top of that, the field may be weakening altogether. Or there are known weak spots whose movements would allow solar wind and other radiation to reach lower altitudes where they hadn't before.

A question I raise is why is there detected warming trends on other planets that don't have an industrial revolution?
 
Denny Crane said:
A question I raise is why is there detected warming trends on other planets that don't have an industrial revolution?
Click to expand...

Ovens are hot, blowtorches are hot, cheerleaders are hot. Doesn't mean your pants aren't on fire.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Denny Crane
Meet the New Climate Deniers
Replies
13
Views
1K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
dviss1
Science Breaking: Researchers at CERN break “The Speed of Light”
Replies
26
Views
2K
Chris Craig
Chris Craig
PapaG
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
Replies
18
Views
2K
BLAZER PROPHET
B
PapaG
Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds
Replies
1
Views
339
crandc
crandc
EL PRESIDENTE
OT Future of the MCU (Marvel Cosmic Universe)- Will End Game be the End?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
VanillaGorilla
VanillaGorilla

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top