Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 Next
Comments 88551 to 88600:
-
muoncounter at 11:44 AM on 15 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Yooper#68: "observed tendencies in S at a global scale were much smaller" I don't understand this: using satellites to estimate surface solar flux and the estimate (S) doesn't match the actual surface data? Sounds like a travesty to me. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:39 AM on 15 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
From Pinker et al 2005:
"The satellite-based record of surface solar fluxes from 1983 until 1992 does suggest some dimming, followed by an increase after 1992, as seen in numerous ground observations."
And
"The magnitudes of the observed tendencies in S at a global scale were much smaller in magnitude than those reported from ground observations."
The Yooper
-
Ian Forrester at 11:33 AM on 15 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Eric said:Sensitivity is not a constant, it varies as a function of weather. It is likely that sensitivity was higher in the 1990's and enhanced the CO2 warming. It lowered in 2000's to amplify less.
Where on earth did you find that nonsense? Sensitivity is dependent on physics and the laws of physics do not change on decadal time frames. -
Ken Lambert at 11:29 AM on 15 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #62 Moderator: This is from #54 "The average change in sea ice area since 1978 during the summer is a reduction of 2 million square kilometers, or 2*10^12 square meters. That means the average additional energy received in the arctic summer due to global warming induce melt back is 2.2*10^21 Joules, or about a third of my rough estimate." I need to see how Tom Curtis calculated the original 2.2E21 Joules. I see how he got from 2.2 down to 1.7 in #56. -
Marcus at 11:25 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
"the most recent rate of rise over these short 16 year windows is at the upper end of a histogram of trends but is not statistically higher than the peaks during the 1940s and 1970s." Care to cite your source Mr Maris, or is that too much to ask of you? -
Dan Moutal at 11:23 AM on 15 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Giles Depends on the specific resource. As I recall the tar sands became viable when oil was roughly 30-40 dollars a barrel. But lets do a back of the envelope calculation: According to wikipedia tar sands are estimated to emit about 67 megatonnes by 2015. So a $200/tonne tax would increase the oil sands extraction costs by almost 13.5 billion. And that is only half the story, because energy consumers will emit more GHGs when they burn the oil, so they will also have to pay the carbon tax. All of a sudden low/no carbon technologies begin to look really attractive. -
daniel maris at 11:20 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Scaddenp, If sea level rise is supposed to track carbon, how do you explain the following: "the most recent rate of rise over these short 16 year windows is at the upper end of a histogram of trends but is not statistically higher than the peaks during the 1940s and 1970s." Surely the amount of carbon is far higher now in the post 2000s with China and other countries' industrial expansion than was the case in the 40s and 70s but we seem to have the same sort of pattern of rises. Why?Moderator Response: [DB] Let us all observe Dikran's sage advice and refrain from enabling daniel's apparent trolling until he states an unequivocal position on the Telegraph article in question. Daniel's comment above, without any context to the topic of this thread, is off-topic. -
scaddenp at 11:09 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Michael, update to Church and White (2011), at Church & White 2011. Data for paper here. -
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Daniel, you do realise that sealevel rise is just one of the negatives from rapid warming that concern us? (see global warming, positives and negatives for more). Disruption to water cycle is probably the worst but also the hardest to forecast accurately at regional level. Population growth is a problem for the future too but rapid warming will compound it. -
muoncounter at 10:58 AM on 15 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
"Pinker (2005) finds that from 1992-2001 TSI at the earths surface increased" Sounds like this Pinker et al 2005: Sustained decreases in [solar radiation at the earth's surface] S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. ... We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. Using satellites to estimate surface; yet somehow the estimate differs from the actual surface data?Moderator Response: [DB] Scooped by the muoncounter, a fried keyboard (long story) and the need to re-register with Science online...full copy here (requires free registration with AAAS). -
Alexandre at 10:55 AM on 15 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Agnostic at 09:52 AM on 15 April, 2011 Do you have a link or more complete reference to that paper? It is at odds with the known TSI time series... unless he means the rising side of the Schwabe cycle.
Source: NASA
-
michael sweet at 10:34 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Daniel, Please cite scientific papers when posting on this site. A denier eyeballing the data with no numerical analysis does not add up to anything believable. This real scientific paper was cited earlier in the thread, obviously you missed it. Recent satalite data shows greater sea level rise.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed URL (missing equals sign). -
Riduna at 09:52 AM on 15 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
The article notes that Vieira et al report that TSI has not increased over the past 50+ years. However Pinker (2005) finds that from 1992-2001 TSI at the earths surface increased at a rate of 0.16W/m2/y. Are Pinkers findings relevant? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred >As to the “higher is colder” mechanism, 978,it has nothing to do with back-radiation ... If increasing CO2 concentration elevates the emission point (for the sake of the argument) outgoing radiation will be reduced. Since the temperature of the surface and troposphere isn't reduced with this mechanism, the total amount of energy radiated must be the same (per Stefan-Boltzmann). If the total energy radiated stays the same, but the amount radiating upwards from the atmosphere into space is reduced, what do you think happens to the energy that used to radiate upwards? If it's no longer radiating upwards, in what other directions do you suppose it's going? -
Albatross at 09:24 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
JMurphy, Thanks. Point taken :) -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
This is amusing, in a rather painful fashion. RSVP - Does your "accumulation" not warm the Earth? Does that temperature rise not radiate more IR, acting as a limiting feedback? If the climate response takes (for the sake of argument) about 40 years to fully respond to a forcing, you're only looking at the unrealized warming of the last 40 years, perhaps half the energy output of the last 150 years. That means that half of the warming (0.005C) has been realized, and that half (0.005C) is yet to be realized. And when it is, well, the Earth will radiate a teeny bit more IR. You're still claiming that energy use is somehow qualitatively different from greenhouse gas entrapment, that the heat from energy use doesn't radiate IR like the heat from the sun and take part in the Stefan-Boltzmann negative feedback and boundary conditions. That, to put it mildly, is ridiculous! -
JMurphy at 09:04 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Albatross wrote : "Now you are seriously referring us to a web page by McLean? Sorry, yet another source with dubious credibility. He is not much better than the much discredited Monckton in fact. if you are going to try and make compelling arguments please use citations from reputable scientific journals. And please do not try and advertise yourself as speaking for the majority of lay people or tax payers or the masses, you clearly do not-- that is another 'skeptic' meme that is doing the rounds" daniel maris is clearly following a favoured scatter-gun tactic of the so-called skeptics and shouldn't be fed. As well as the McLean link and claim to represent the masses that you mention, previous comments have included suppositions about the (desperate) possible effect of silting of rivers; dismissal of the accuracy of tidal guages (presumably because they don't give the results required); claims about the IPCC giving out misinformation, because of Pachauri's involvement over the Himalayan glaciers mistake; links to WUWT and Christopher Booker - those paragons of scientific rigour (ahem); claims about not being convinced about things that he doesn't want to be convinced about; and (also in the posting you referred to) reference to the possible overthrow of democracy and the (very sad, of course) inability of those pesky scientists to get out of their elitist ivory towers and explain themselves properly to the ordinary man and woman in the street - thereby leaving them at the mercy of the denialists (which is, of course, to be regretted...probably). No more feeding needed, I believe. -
muoncounter at 08:54 AM on 15 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP#376: "an overall accumuation which would basically explain how termperatures generally peak somewhere past noon and in summer months." Can't argue with you there. Summers are hotter than winters; late-afternoon is the hottest part of the day. Is this news? Was this in need of an explanation? "with waste heat we have a relatively low level but very long energy pulse " Do you have any empirical evidence for the accumulation of waste heat? Do you have any response to the evidence which shows that waste heat accumulation is invisible on IR, despite the fact that solar heat accumulation is quite visible? -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:43 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Gilles@76 The method I have already suggested (using the observations for a randomly chosen day) is guaranteed to give plausible initial conditions. We know they are plausible because the actually happened. You only need to know what "implausible" means for the meaning of an implausible initial condition to be obvious - a set of initial conditions that are impossible or extremely unlikely. Who cares about the "characteristic relaxation timescale for an "implausible" initialization to reach quasi-steady state?"? There is no reason a climate modeller would want to initialise a model in an implausible state. The question is nonsense and frankly just blatant trolling, you know it, I know it and everybody else knows it. -
Ken Lambert at 08:22 AM on 15 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Alec Cowan #112 Happy to engage you on any of the numbers rather than the bullsphere Alec. Trenberth was highlighting the fact that in Aug09 when his now famous paper was published - he could not account for more than about 60% of the warming imbalance which was postulated by Hansen in 2005 (0.9W/sq.m) Since then; Knox and Douglas published a paper in Aug10 which showed that 2003-08 data for OHC content was flat or slightly negative (cooling)for the top 700m and *deep ocean* of approx +0.09W/sq.m (Purkey & Johnson). The paper cites five Argo studies for 0-700m OHC by Willis, Loehle, Pielke, Knox & Douglas show **negative** OHC change, while von Schukmann (0-2000m) is the outlier showing +0.77W/sq.m. I would like know if the Knox & Douglas paper has been contradicted or its findings overturned by more recent studies. If not, then Trenberth's lack of warming is still with us, and in fact has gone from finding 60% of Hansen's 0.9W/sq.m to finding almost **none** of it. -
Gilles at 08:10 AM on 15 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"Jaccard's calculations indicate upwards $200 per tonne of emissions is ultimately needed. " and what is the "natural" price per tC above which you can produce profitably the amount of unconventional resources , that the tax is supposed to avoid, by comparison ? -
Gilles at 08:07 AM on 15 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"You are also making the typical mistake of assuming there's an immediate bump in production as a result of new exploration; even in the best of times, it can take years. " Ok, let's admit it takes years to develop fields. So can you explain this kind of plot , showing how EIA's forecasts have been wrong these last years :
there are actually two weirds things to explain : first, how they can have been so wrong in the short term scale, since fields need years to be develop, they should have known fairly well the rise of production in the years after 2005 - where no rise at all occured actually. And second, where have the more-than-15 Mbl/d disappeared in 2030 (more than the Saudi arabia or Russia production), in only 3 years ? if it the a matter of years, we should have plenty of time to find and exploit them , even after a rather limited plateau around now (which shouldn't last if you believe them...)
But do you believe them ?
-
Ken Lambert at 08:05 AM on 15 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tim Curtis #62 Are you going to reply with your calculation? -
Albatross at 08:04 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Gilles, stop arguing strawmen and quote mining stolen emails and trolling and making sweeping generalizations. Feel free to believe that all climate modellers are inept. That is just pure folly, but you are of entitled to you beliefs, no matter how misguided or incorrect. i'm sure those 'skeptical' scientists who do modelling are perfectly credible in Gilles' eyes, oh wait...and oh dear, and oh my. Now you still have not answered my question @62, electing instead to float red herrings ;) Why do 'skeptics' have such an awful time of it staying on topic? -
Gilles at 07:55 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
OK, I believe you know GCM computations :) . So explain me how you find that "the initializations are plausible...." ? (and what is a "implausible" initialization ?) a related question is : what is the characteristic relaxation timescale for an "implausible" initialization to reach quasi-steady state ?Moderator Response: [DB] Feel free to respond if you wish, Dikran, but it is obvious that you are being trolled here. [Dikran Marsupial] No problem I spotted it, as noted in my reply. -
Albatross at 07:54 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Dikran @74, Re the book Ann Henderson-Sellers knows her stuff. I have not read the book, but the authors have an excellent track record, so you probably will not be disappointed. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:48 AM on 15 April 2011Muller Misinformation #2: 'leaked' tree-ring data
This is all pretty basic and well documented stuff. I'm really curious what Muller is up to. Either he's just blatantly avoiding this information, or he's circling in a sphere where these things don't get discusses,... or there is something more deliberate in what he's doing. -
Dikran Marsupial at 07:44 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Gilles@71 Yes, you do have to start from an initial condition, however, as I pointed out they don't affect the output if left to "burn in". If you doubt the truth of that, download the source code for, say GISS Model E, and try it for yourself. Reproducing Easterling and Wehner would be a good experiment, see if the initialisation makes a significant difference to the result. As long as the initialisations are plausible, I predict that it won't. There you are, a Popperian falsifiable prediction, go for it, prove me wrong. The comment about me not knowing about GCM computations gave me a good laugh. Lets leave it at that shall we? ;o) Albatross, I have had a look though this book on climate modelling in my local bookshop, looks nice, I have been tempted to buy it on more than one occasion, but have not done so yet. -
scaddenp at 07:36 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
"It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the public to want to see some good evidence that things are changing for the worse and that carbon reduction will address the issue. " That would be IPCC WG1 and WG2. However, what we find is that taxpayer would rather believe in fairies than accept unwelcome news. If you get bad medical news, then getting a second opinion is a good idea. Going to a witch-doctor because he will tell you that's actually okay is not. -
pbjamm at 07:30 AM on 15 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP@376 "Remember that on the average this energy is being liberated day and night all over the planet non stop...no breaks, no nights no winters." How much energy are we talking about here? -
AuntSally at 07:25 AM on 15 April 2011Muller Misinformation #2: 'leaked' tree-ring data
Another hallmark of scientific training is, when you get something demonstrably wrong, you acknowledge the evidence and the error and move forward. There's no shame in this -- it's how science progresses. So let's see if Prof. Muller can simply say "You know, on the 'hide the decline' thing, I just got it wrong. Turns out ... " I'm not holding my breath. -
RSVP at 07:17 AM on 15 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
skywatcher 374 "You have some bizarre ideas" Not sure if you believe that that energy accumulates for a given location as it moves from sunrise to noon, yet I do think this happens. I also consider this diurnal radiant forcing as a pulse with a a duty cycle that goes from nil to 100% depending on the latitude and season etc. Similarly, you have a longer energy pulse superimposing this one with a 50% duty cycle spanning six months for each hemisphere. Superposition would therefore result in an overall accumuation which would basically explain how termperatures generally peak somewhere past noon and in summer months. Energy that carries over through the mins is therefore accumulating. In the same way, with waste heat we have a relatively low level but very long energy pulse that started with the Industrial Revolution, wherein the peak has not yet been reached. Remember that on the average this energy is being liberated day and night all over the planet non stop...no breaks, no nights no winters. Given that this pulse has been on the increase for around 200 years, it should take that long just to discharge this same energy. If as you say, waste heat is just another forcing, the same rules should apply to it for the way heat accumulates in the upswing phases of diurnal and annual solar cycles. But if you find this bizzare, please let me know in what way. Thanks. -
Dikran Marsupial at 07:04 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Can I suggest we ignore Daniel, he has demonstrated he isn't remotely interested in the evidence, and is just another troll. Another argument debunked, no acknowledgement, just move on to the next item on the list... I pointed out earlier in the thread that is the behaviour of a denialist, well it was your choice Daniel. -
Albatross at 07:02 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Gilles @71, I'm sorry, but you are talking though your hat. Actually scientists and modellers do know what they are doing.....I'm looking for a suitable book to refer you to read on the subject. But modelling weather versus modelling climate is not the subject of this thread. Christy's misinformation and deception is. Did you see my question to you and others here? -
Albatross at 06:55 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Daniel @63, Now you are seriously referring us to a web page by McLean? Sorry, yet another source with dubious credibility. He is not much better than the much discredited Monckton in fact. if you are going to try and make compelling arguments please use citations from reputable scientific journals. Daniel, it is OK to say Monckton and Morner got it wrong, that is what a true skeptic would do. And we could then move on to discuss the science in goofd faith. But if you will not recognize the most obvious egregious errors/distortions on their part, then we are wasting our time. And please do not try and advertise yourself as speaking for the majority of lay people or tax payers or the masses, you clearly do not-- that is another 'skeptic' meme that is doing the rounds. Fortunately most people are open minded and do not have ideological or political barriers or have a propensity to entertain fictitious conspiracy theories when interpreting the science. Heck, even the crickets and plants and everything in the ocean blue get it. -
Gilles at 06:54 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
I'm sorry but you have to start from an initial condition anyway, and you cannot choose an initial condition in 1880 with a day randomly chosen in 2010, since the state is of the Earth is supposed to have changed (you think it has changed don't you ?) - you seem to answer as if you know GCM computations, but it's obviously not the case- so why don't you say simply "I don't know "? -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:50 AM on 15 April 2011Muller Misinformation #2: 'leaked' tree-ring data
Perhaps he's trying to regain his lost popularity at WUWT... -
NewYorkJ at 06:25 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Albatross (#65), You're absolutely right. We shouldn't take anything a tabloid-quality source prints at face value (even a direct quotation) and I haven't a seen a reliable source report on it. The first quote is clearly at odds with his published work, and is rather silly. Contacting Tsonis would be the only way to confirm it. If he's been misquoted, I would think a lawsuit would be in order. -
daniel maris at 06:19 AM on 15 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Dikran and others, You have to remember that, whatever the science, it's taxpayers and consumers who will fund carbon reduction measures and who have to be convinced of their necessity - unless that is you are suggesting we should move from democracy to a kind of Wellsian Scientific Dictatorship. If this is the way you communicate with the non-scientific, then Gawd help us. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the public to want to see some good evidence that things are changing for the worse and that carbon reduction will address the issue. Michael Sweet - You've visited Tuvalu. You haven't lived there for 40 years. What do you make then of this scientific evidence? - http://mclean.ch/climate/Sea_Level_Tuvalu.htm -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:09 AM on 15 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
KR @ 57... Exactly! I've tried to say the same thing several times. If you do one small experiment and remove the accumulated radiative forcing from century scale temperature trend you get a very different picture. The difference is AGW. Us. -
It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam - "KR I have never claimed that CO2 is the only driver of climate change. Could you please point out where in my comments I said that?" Every single time you claimed or plotted CO2 versus temperature, and asked "Why don't they correlate?". Temperatures correlate extremely well with the set of forcings, one of which is CO2. That CO2 forcing is becoming more and more dominant now; we would be seeing declining temperatures, about 0.8C cooler globally, without the CO2 forcing. But by claiming that a lack of exact correlation between a single forcing and temperatures disproves CO2 forcing, you are posing a strawman argument, claiming that CO2 is the only driver. It isn't that simple. If you don't understand that, I despair of you understanding most of climate science. -
Dan Moutal at 05:18 AM on 15 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
On the phone again @gilles "it would really be that simple if the carbon tax were much more than the natural rise of prices" Yes. Which is what I have already said is needed for the carbon tax to be significantly reduce GHG emissions. Well sort of, since the carbon tax is an increase in price in addition to other factors. A modest tax won't achieve very much. Obviously. Jaccard's calculations indicate upwards $200 per tonne of emissions is ultimately needed. -
Alec Cowan at 05:16 AM on 15 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
@Albatross #55 Yes, indeed! -
Albatross at 04:49 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Dikran @68, "The initialisation is important for weather forecasting, not climate modelling" You are right. Modelling climate is not an initial value problem (numerical weather prediction though is), climate modelling is a boundary problem. This is pretty basic knowledge. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:45 AM on 15 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Gilles: Yes I did answer that question, in the post immediately following the one in which you posed it! Using the observations for a randomly chosen day would be one method, but as it happens, after the "burn in" phase, the model is statistically independent (i.e. in terms of long term trends and averages) of the intialisation, so it is pretty irrelevant. The initialisation gives rise to the difference between the model runss, but the variabilty of the model runs (i.e. the spread) is essentially independent of the initialisation. Those long term averages and trends are what we call "climate". I pointed out the statistical independence in the post immediately preceding the one in which you posed the question! This suggests you should spend less time posting and more time reading on these threads. The initialisation is important for weather forecasting, not climate modelling. If you understood climate modelling, you would understand why that is the case. -
Albatross at 04:43 AM on 15 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Muoncounter, Maybe Adam is Poptech ;)
Moderator Response:[DB] No.
-
muoncounter at 04:42 AM on 15 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam#51: This discussion belongs on the cosmic ray thread. "See here" Thanks, you've confirmed my suspicions with your link to our old friend PopTech. -
Albatross at 04:42 AM on 15 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam, "The radiosonde data shows a lot less warming over the past 30 years than the surface station data." That statement was and is simply false. I find it astounding that you can so easily dismiss data from NCDS/NOAA. You also seem to be focussed on tropical temperatures, when we are dealing with an increase in mean global temperature. Cherry pick much? You are deluding only yourself Adam. Re the reliability of the various temperature records. Each and every dataset has issues-- yet they agree remarkably well. You claim that radiosonde data are more reliable, and they agree very well with the NOAA data, as do the satellite data, and the re-analysis data....
[Source]
Moderator Response: [DB] Classic goal-post shifting by Adam. First (on the Greenland/Zebra thread) it was Arctic/Greenland temps. Then various layers of the atmosphere. Now a retreat into the tropics. What next, the tropospheric hot spot & Spencers "Clouds-cause-ENSO" pet toy? Or perhaps a resurrection of the Iris-thingy? The convolutions & contortions are fascinating... -
Adam at 04:39 AM on 15 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Dikran I am not cherry picking. There is a huge difference in the rate of warming showed in the satellite temperature data and the surface station data. Satellite data is much more reliable at measuring global temperature. Therefore all the evidence would suggest that the surface station data is unreliable at actually monitoring temperature changes.Moderator Response: [DB] I'm glad you feel satellites are reliable. Because once again, Tamino's graph is based on satellite data and surface data, which (as those with eyes that see can plainly see) agree. Glad that's settled. BTW, you must have missed the preliminary news release from BEST, which showed virtually no issues with the surface station record. May want to note that in your Poptech links. -
Adam at 04:33 AM on 15 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Muoncounter, I have already read your cosmic ray article, and most of it I think I can indeed answer. Look, Svensmark's cosmic ray theory is supported by dozens of peer reviewed papers. See here and look in the cosmic ray section. I also suggest you watch the documentary 'The Cloud Mystery', which explains about his work. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5Moderator Response: When someone points you to a more relevant thread, you must not only read the original post there; you must also continue your comments there. This comment of yours is off topic here.
Prev 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 Next
