You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Klaatu, you really need to read the article and perhaps understand what they are talking about.
And I quote.......
"The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. "
"
The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth. That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate. The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong. Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.
"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News. "So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."
That is not the same as saying the Sun is not a major driver of climate change at all. That is why the BBC have misrepresented it with their headline.
Geezer
How long have we been able to measure cosmic rays accurately? 20, 30 years?
Klaatu, you really need to read the article and perhaps understand what they are talking about.
And I quote.......
"The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. "
"
The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth. That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate. The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong. Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.
"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News. "So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."
That is not the same as saying the Sun is not a major driver of climate change at all. That is why the BBC have misrepresented it with their headline.
Geezer
A very good reason for not viewing (mis)information on certain websites. It's not only the BBC who are misrepresenting information.
hy·poth·e·sis Audio Help /haɪˈpɒθəsɪs, hɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ses Audio Help /-ˌsiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. 1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
Posting up thesis and comments from scientists doesn't make it so.
And the there's the truth. The link provided indetifies significant flaws in the (un)science of climate change forecasts used by the IPCC. I didn't in anyway suggest climate change was not an exageration.
I didn't in anyway suggest climate change was not an exageration.
I know, You are suggesting the exact opposite. The point I was trying to make is that you can post up as many climate change skeptic stories as you like - there are twice as many links supporting the theory. You, I, or anyone else on this site, is not expert enough to claim to know which scientist is right.
You posting up link after link saying "look! Climate change is a great big lie" doesn't make it so.
Seriously though what is it about Subaru drivers that makes them
a. Tory
b. Hard-line on immigration and social issues?
c. Deny GW is man-made
This is a serious question, because this place is sometimes so unrepresentative of the 'real-world'. I have a Subaru but I feel that that's about all I have in common with a lot of people on here.
Well if you have got a Subaru, then you must also be non representative of the real world like the rest of us!
I am not tied to any political party, only whichever one i think might do the best for this country. Don't think much of the present lot either!
I found it interesting to see the report last week which said that global temperatures have not increased at all so far this century.
I found it interesting to see the report last week which said that global temperatures have not increased at all so far this century.
Not aimed at you at all Les, But....
This is the sort of thing that drives me up the wall with this whole debate.
One of the big sticks that skeptics hit proponents of MMGW is the fact that they are extrapolating data from a relative small sample - Readings going back a hundred years for measured temps, and thousands of years for ice cores etc. This is for a planet 4600 Billion years old.
"You are making judgements on a tiny period of time" they say.
Indeed on this very page, the scientists claiming sun activity is not having an impact on global temperatures have been criticised for "only" having measured the results of the last 30 years.
Now this is a perfectly reasonable point to make.
But then someone comes along and says somethign that supports thier cause - Like "Oh, look, the Earth hasn't gotten any hotter so far this millenium"
And then all of the sudden, the skeptics say "Ahh! Look! that proves it! Global warming isn't happening!!"
Because the evidence supports thier point of view, as if by magic, the last 7 years is a plenty long enough period of time to base facts on.
Location: South of Praze-an-Beeble ... but not for long ..
Posts: 6,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
But then someone comes along and says somethign that supports thier cause - Like "Oh, look, the Earth hasn't gotten any hotter so far this millenium"
And then all of the sudden, the skeptics say "Ahh! Look! that proves it! Global warming isn't happening!!"
Because the evidence supports thier point of view, as if by magic, the last 7 years is a plenty long enough period of time to base facts on.
What it does though is show up the flaws in the computer models which have basically been wrong about the temperature rises over the last few years. A bit like the weather forecasters not being able to predict the weather a day or two in advance.
This is the sort of thing that drives me up the wall with this whole debate.
One of the big sticks that skeptics hit proponents of MMGW is the fact that they are extrapolating data from a relative small sample - Readings going back a hundred years for measured temps, and thousands of years for ice cores etc. This is for a planet 4600 Billion years old.
"You are making judgements on a tiny period of time" they say.
Indeed on this very page, the scientists claiming sun activity is not having an impact on global temperatures have been criticised for "only" having measured the results of the last 30 years.
Now this is a perfectly reasonable point to make.
But then someone comes along and says somethign that supports thier cause - Like "Oh, look, the Earth hasn't gotten any hotter so far this millenium"
And then all of the sudden, the skeptics say "Ahh! Look! that proves it! Global warming isn't happening!!"
Because the evidence supports thier point of view, as if by magic, the last 7 years is a plenty long enough period of time to base facts on.
Yes I take your point Pete, and from my side, I am more interested in knowing the real truth about climate change etc. and whether we are being taken advantage of by those who think up ever new taxes to go towards keeping themselves in luxury at our expense.
When I saw that report though, it certainly seemed to be significant since the global temperature increase in the last bit of the last century was of a noticeable value.
As was said above, how much belief can we put in the forecasts which have been made and are being used as an excuse by the politicians?
I know, You are suggesting the exact opposite. The point I was trying to make is that you can post up as many climate change skeptic stories as you like - there are twice as many links supporting the theory. You, I, or anyone else on this site, is not expert enough to claim to know which scientist is right.
You posting up link after link saying "look! Climate change is a great big lie" doesn't make it so.
First bold text; Actually, no.
Second bold text; Yes, theory, NOTHING proven!
Third bold text; Did you check out the credentials of the originators of the article? No? Oh dear!
Yes I take your point Pete, and from my side, I am more interested in knowing the real truth about climate change etc. and whether we are being taken advantage of by those who think up ever new taxes to go towards keeping themselves in luxury at our expense.
When I saw that report though, it certainly seemed to be significant since the global temperature increase in the last bit of the last century was of a noticeable value.
As was said above, how much belief can we put in the forecasts which have been made and are being used as an excuse by the politicians?
Les
I wish more people were as aware as you on this subject. We reject all other (mis)information from pollies, but "clmate change", we "accept". Strange!
So you don;t think that climate change is an exagerration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaatu
Second bold text; Yes, theory, NOTHING proven!
Either way...
And there are lots of theorys out there that are accepted as being most likely - Without actually having ever been proven.
Lots of things have been postualted in the past, and taken decades to be proven - E=mc2 for example.
CERN is convinced it is going to find Gravitons with the Hadron collider, but thier existance is merely guessed at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaatu
Third bold text; Did you check out the credentials of the originators of the article? No? Oh dear!
Were they any more impressive than, say, the Royal Society? - (Which is, of course the National Academy of Science and the commonwealth - Which, of course, includes New Zealand)
[quote=PeteBrant;7798819]So you don;t think that climate change is an exagerration?
Not at all. It happens all the time.
"Either way...
And there are lots of theorys out there that are accepted as being most likely - Without actually having ever been proven."
Accepted (non)science is called concensus. That is not science laddie!
"Lots of things have been postualted in the past, and taken decades to be proven - E=mc2 for example."
This is too simple matey. Try to "formulate" climate as simply, you can't.
"CERN is convinced it is going to find Gravitons with the Hadron collider, but thier existance is merely guessed at."
And your point is?
"Were they any more impressive than, say, the Royal Society? - (Which is, of course the National Academy of Science and the commonwealth - Which, of course, includes New Zealand) "
I dunno, but as they were "scientists" who contributed to the IPCC 4th report, two of the 2500 scientists in fact, and now suggest that the IPCC (A political organisation) are "cooking" figures, suggest there's a big rat somewhere.
Accepted (non)science is called concensus. That is not science laddie!
Course it is! Are you saying that when Newton predidcted that the effect of the inverse square rule on two massive bodies orbiting each other would be to form an ellispe it wasn't science?
Most of the Principia was theory - And of course - Science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaatu
This is too simple matey. Try to "formulate" climate as simply, you can't.
But to take unproven things, like the General Theory of Relativity, or related Black holes - None of this has been proven - Its just a theory postulated based on the evidence available - Exactly as with cetain theories with regards to global warming and climate change.
You seem to be consistantly writing off anything supporting climate change as being rubbish, and anythign doubting climate change as being the absolute truth.
You seem to be consistantly writing off anything supporting climate change as being rubbish, and anythign doubting climate change as being the absolute truth.
I'm not an advocate of AGW Pete, but I have to agreee with you there. Klaatu does seem to be some blind zealot on this.
Course it is! Are you saying that when Newton predidcted that the effect of the inverse square rule on two massive bodies orbiting each other would be to form an ellispe it wasn't science?
No! Newton was independent, fighting against "accepted" science. Same with Coppernicus (Sp). Concensus isn't science. Just because the IPCC (a group of highly paid people say it is, doesn't actually mean it is), says it is. There is discent in the ranks of the IPCC. Can't you read?
"Most of the Principia was theory - And of course - Science."
Theory become "science" once proven. Not because Al Gore says so.
"But to take unproven things, like the General Theory of Relativity, or related Black holes - None of this has been proven - Its just a theory postulated based on the evidence available - Exactly as with cetain theories with regards to global warming and climate change."
Theories!!!! No actual proven "science". However, ALL of the IPCC "forecasts" are based on climate "models", and nothing in real world science at all. Fact!
"You seem to be consistantly writing off anything supporting climate change as being rubbish, and anythign doubting climate change as being the absolute truth.
"
Climate ALWAYS changes!! I have stated this many times! I have been following this "Charade" about AGW for some 30 or more years, backed up with non-internet based information (About 20 years worth), my conclusion is we're being shafted.
"Course it is! Are you saying that when Newton predidcted that the effect of the inverse square rule on two massive bodies orbiting each other would be to form an ellispe it wasn't science?"
No! Newton was independent, fighting against "accepted" science. Same with Coppernicus (Sp). Concensus isn't science. Just because the IPCC (a group of highly paid people say it is, doesn't actually mean it is), says it is. There is discent in the ranks of the IPCC. Can't you read?
"Most of the Principia was theory - And of course - Science."
Theory becomes "science" once proven. Not because Al Gore says so.
"But to take unproven things, like the General Theory of Relativity, or related Black holes - None of this has been proven - Its just a theory postulated based on the evidence available - Exactly as with cetain theories with regards to global warming and climate change."
Theories!!!! No actual proven "science". However, ALL of the IPCC "forecasts" are based on climate "models", and nothing in real world science at all. Fact!
No! Newton was independent, fighting against "accepted" science.
He wasn't fighting against accepted science, because there was no science about celesital bodies to argue about.
He actually completed Prinicipia for a wager - As to who could prove the movement of celestial bodies - He could have done a simple equation, but instead produced one of the most amazing works in history - And all of it, theory - None of it proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaatu
There is discent in the ranks of the IPCC. Can't you read?
Right - So, does that make everythign the IPCC have ever said wrong? Or does it means that some people have revised thier opnion?
Following that logic, if a well known GW skeptic changes his mind, then all Skeptic opinion becomes invalid - which is patently ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaatu
Theory become "science" once proven. Not because Al Gore says so.
Don't talk rot - Much of Prinicpia was proven for hundreds of years. Some of it was proven wrong - But "in the right ball park".
What you are saying, is that Einstiens General theory of relativity is not science. That the age of the universe is not science.
Just because something has not been proven absolutely does not mean that it is not extremely likely.
The Neutron was theorised to exists in the late 1800's - It took another 40 years to actualy prove it existed - But the facts upon which the theory was based absolutely lead to the existance of a Neutron being incredibly likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaatu
Theories!!!! No actual proven "science". However, ALL of the IPCC "forecasts" are based on climate "models", and nothing in real world science at all. Fact!
All of Einstiens, Newtons and Hawkings predictions are based on thoeries that support the facts.
You have a series of result and you postulate what the resons for those event sis - That's what a theory is.
If you are suggesting that Science only deals in absolute facts and nothing else, then you are absolutely dead wrong.
Thats fine and a perfectly valid opnion - But popping in here every morning to link up the lastest skeptical article, and completely disputing any article that says the reverse, doens't make it right.
"He wasn't fighting against accepted science, because there was no science about celesital bodies to argue about.
He actually completed Prinicipia for a wager - As to who could prove the movement of celestial bodies - He could have done a simple equation, but instead produced one of the most amazing works in history - And all of it, theory - None of it proven."
But it is, now proven! Newton and celestial bodies, right? Lets not forget Coppernicus, ok! And how he was "non-accepting" of "concensus". He was proven right!
"Right - So, does that make everythign the IPCC have ever said wrong? Or does it means that some people have revised thier opnion?"
The IPCC is political organisation. Take what you want from that fact.
"Following that logic, if a well known GW skeptic changes his mind, then all Skeptic opinion becomes invalid - which is patently ridiculous."
Where, in this "bubble" of discussion, have I stated a GW skeptic. I pointed out that a "prominent scientist" on the board of the IPCC, concludes their "forcasts" are flawed.
"Don't talk rot - Much of Prinicpia was proven for hundreds of years. Some of it was proven wrong - But "in the right ball park"."
Well this "ball park" is literally cosmic!
"What you are saying, is that Einstiens General theory of relativity is not science. That the age of the universe is not science."
No, in the context you presented, "climate" cannot be "solved" in a simple eqausion, as you posted. Why? Because ALL variable are not known.
"Just because something has not been proven absolutely does not mean that it is not extremely likely."
It does when Govn't policy is introduced to "limit" liberty. And clearly you have missed the point. *sigh*
"The Neutron was theorised to exists in the late 1800's - It took another 40 years to actualy prove it existed - But the facts upon which the theory was based absolutely lead to the existance of a Neutron being incredibly likely."
So!
"All of Einstiens, Newtons and Hawkings predictions are based on thoeries that support the facts."
And in "climate" those "facts" are 99% assumption. Prove me wrong!
"You have a series of result and you postulate what the resons for those event sis - That's what a theory is."
Yeah!
"If you are suggesting that Science only deals in absolute facts and nothing else, then you are absolutely dead wrong.
"
You are right. BUT, to present "facts" that aren't, as the IPCC do, is equally "wrong".
Thats fine and a perfectly valid opnion - But popping in here every morning to link up the lastest skeptical article, and completely disputing any article that says the reverse, doens't make it right.
Karori researcher Kesten Green has told MPs there was no need to pass the Government's Climate Change (Emissions Trade and Renewable Preference) Bill - because global warming forecasts are unscientific.
....
He told Parliament's finance select committee that authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report provided sufficient information to observe predic tions violated 72 of 89 accepted principles of forecasting
The problem with your discussions at the moment is that only one of you is looking at both sides of this arguement, the other simply will not accept anything that doesn't conform the position that he has wedded himself to.
I'll let you both work who is who.
I think, and even a lot of sceptics think, that man made Co2 emmission, have an effect on the climate. The discussion could therefore be about how much of an effect?
Location: South of Praze-an-Beeble ... but not for long ..
Posts: 6,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin2005
Pete/Klaatu
The problem with your discussions at the moment is that only one of you is looking at both sides of this arguement, the other simply will not accept anything that doesn't conform the position that he has wedded himself to.
I'll let you both work who is who.
I think, and even a lot of sceptics think, that man made Co2 emmission, have an effect on the climate. The discussion could therefore be about how much of an effect?
Martin
Seems to me that both have looked at all the arguments and that whereas PB still isn't convinced one way or another, Klaatu is. As am I ...
As for your last comment, on what evidence do you base that comment?
