Posted on 04/03/2008 10:10:19 PM PDT by melt
When they map out the highs and lows of the climate over the last million years or so, they see something interesting.
There are repeated, predictable periods when the temps rise, then plummet dramatically.
Now, does a volcanism theory fit the “repeated and predictable” model?
Maybe, but probably not.
Do supernovas on the nearest 50 light years fit the “repeated and predictable” model.
Almost certainly not.
The only theory that fits is the theory about the variations in the Earths orbit and inclination. IIRC, it’s a small one every 44,000 years, and a big one every 250,000 years or so.
Some good links about the Great Global Warming Swindle:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/05/climatechange.climatechange
If they’re not showing the solid data refuting Henrik Svensmark, why should we think that this is anything more than a smear job on his work?
As for Cosmic rays....these are hard X-rays (very short wavelength) that zap right through matter with no heating effect....of course you could get an occasional nuclear collision....but to fast to cause any heating effect.
Gondring
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but I have to ask.
Have you actually seen this movie?
I am a funny sort,- I tend to do the leg work and in fact I checked out your links.
And, respectfully, there is absolutely no substance there.
For instance:
Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK, said: “It is absolutely clear that the sun is nothing to do with the recent warming.
“This doesn’t rely on models, it uses real data and it shows that all the solar trends have been going in the opposite direction for the last 20 years.”
Professor Lockwood carried out the new study to directly challenge the claims made in the Channel 4 programme, which was criticised as misleading by scientists.
Solar trends going in the opposite direction? What??
Perhaps they mean: Solar flares used to be believed as the source of warming, but real data showed the opposite.
This led to the experimentation and results that solar winds affected cosmic rays and resulted in cooling.
A more cynical person might say that this reporter took this scientist out of context.
You may want to Google that article.
No kidding- this is almost comical in its simplicity. There is no substance here whatsoever.
You should really turn off the NPR and CBS and dig in for yourself.
There is such a thing as “The Scientific Method” it used to be commonplace before Liberals took over the schools.
In a nut shell- the goal is to prove it out, or else it’s just a theory.
Furthermore-
Here are a few fun questions-
What is the most abundant Greenhouse Gas?
What is the greatest source of C02?
A-
Water vapor
The Ocean
:)
Thanks You for thinking- god bless!
I flipped by one of the science channels the other day and there was a program addressing solar radiation. I had not realized that a very strong solar flair could have killed our moon landing astronauts. The program made it seem unavoidable, if the event was of a significant enough nature.
This made me think of the folks on the space station.
They also discussed the solar flair effect on our atmosphere. It left me with the impression that the sun does influence our climate considerably.
The sun is responsible for most life on our planet. It would be impossible for me to believe it couldn’t be part of the problem of global warming.
“This is of vast significance because if the skeptics are right, it would mean we’re wasting our time trying to cut greenhouse gases,” the researchers said in a statement. “But we couldn’t find the link they were proposing which means we are right to be cutting carbon emissions.”
Did You look?
The Al Gore Chapter of the Flat Earth Society s alive and well.
.... "But we couldn't find the link they were proposing which means we are right to be cutting carbon emissions."
Nice scientific method there. "We found that a theory to do with cosmic rays was wrong and so our equally unsupported theory about CO2 has to be right".
WOULD THESE IDIOTS PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE OTHER PLANETS ALSO WARMED?
Cosmic rays from the sun might not have anything to do with cloud formation (wouldn’t that COOL things?), but the sun is what is responsible for the planet warming up.
The writer is attempting to use a non sequitur to justify his/her agenda (in the headline) about carbon emission effects on the climate.
The sun is responsible for cloud dissipation, though, what else burns off the fog in the morning?
Yeah, I read that too.
Even Carl Sagan would have pointed and laughed at this.
And the sun is not the only source of cosmic rays, which we get from the rest of the galaxy and universe as well, so variations in the Sun's cosmic ray output would not necessarily be all that significant
On that time scale, we also have to consider the Sun's orbit around the galaxy, and what the period is of us going above and below the galactic plane, and what effects that might have
Physicist Terry Sloan of Lancaster University and Arnold Wolfendale of Durham University said their research finds no evidence of a link between the ionizing cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover.Who said anything about low cloud cover and cosmic rays having anything to do with Global Warming?
What about Solar irradiance and increased atmospheric temperatures on earth, you morons.
Oh, by the way, morons, cosmic rays do not come from the sun.
Terry Sloan and Arnold Wolfendale have been eating way, way too much X and going to way too many late night raves. Their brains are completely addled.
Well, I guess the debate is over. I better buy some carbon credits from AlGore.
But wait... global warming isn’t caused by the sun? No... debate is over, buy credits, stop thinking, become a mindless socialist robot.
Exactly. You beat me to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.