E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,329
48,593
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

actually, assuming he was deeply into econometrics, he'd be very well qualified to consider the regressions needed to analyze the huge multivariable functions that describe the climate.

statisticians are the same way.

analysis of mathematics (which is really all this stuff is) isn't limited to one field.

My ass. Climate science is one hell of a lot bigger than running some mutivariate regressions. Actually about five hells of a lot bigger than that. If you are seriously arguing that an economist is qualified to in effect peer review papers on climatology outside of a small area of them, you are simply incorrect.

He was not arguing that they had made some errors in their regression tables, or that their math was wrong, in the article he is talking about GW's effect on Atlantic hurricanes, Greenland's ice sheets, etc... etc. He's basically parroting global warming denier arguments.

Absolutely ridiculous.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,329
48,593
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.
Tell me o wise one...is he factually wrong?

We've had this discussion before, and the answer is yes. You've also tried some of the same bogus crap in here and been shown to be wrong. It just bounces straight off you and you come back with the same arguments again and again, but that's because you're not interested in the science. It's pointless to discuss this with you, I've tried before and simply run into a wall of blind anti-gw ideology again and again. Since you can't possibly admit you're wrong, why bother?

For whatever reason AT/Dailytech is a haven for global warming deniers, I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it doesn't really matter anymore though, as you are in such a small minority by this point that without an anti-environmental president in office to block GW legislation, you've lost.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,982
3,318
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: XZeroII
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

Looks like we have some of that 'change' Obama promised. Instead of supressing Pro-Climate-Change information, we're now supressing Anti-Climate-Change information.

From one end of the spectrum to the other. :(

Looks like we have another idiot who believes that just because the EPA is a government agency that Obama is kept informed about every littlke thing concerning EVERY government agency.

Plus did you actually read the article......hmmmm

Bush apparently personally ran every aspect of this country based on how peope have been reacting to news like this for years. Why would Obama be any different?

Yes, I did read the article. Would it trouble you too much to explain why you felt so compelled to ask?

You lack of understanding concerning the subject is obvious!!
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The SCOTUS finds that CO2 shall be regulated by the EPA, a new President comes into office and a Nixon appointee who supported 'cap and trade' for SO2 does not support 'cap and trade' for CO2.
Is this a great country or what ? :laugh:

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that SO2 is bad for the environment.

On the other hand, the debate is not over regarding the effect of CO2 on the environment. Is that so hard to understand?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

WTF? Why are we even talking about this then? :confused:
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,709
11
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

WTF? Why are we even talking about this then? :confused:

Because he's diverting the issue.

This economist was talking about whether it is smart to blow money on something to achieve a goal which could be achieved using cheaper means.

Of course that's beside the point and this is a "peer review" "scientist" "IPCC" "carbon tax" thread.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.
Tell me o wise one...is he factually wrong?

We've had this discussion before, and the answer is yes. You've also tried some of the same bogus crap in here and been shown to be wrong. It just bounces straight off you and you come back with the same arguments again and again, but that's because you're not interested in the science. It's pointless to discuss this with you, I've tried before and simply run into a wall of blind anti-gw ideology again and again. Since you can't possibly admit you're wrong, why bother?

For whatever reason AT/Dailytech is a haven for global warming deniers, I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it doesn't really matter anymore though, as you are in such a small minority by this point that without an anti-environmental president in office to block GW legislation, you've lost.
You're so full of it. Remember this thread? Perhaps you recall that I asked you several times to respond to my last post in that thread. It's time for you to quit running and 'prove' me wrong...time to put up or shut up.

The irony here is that you have the nerve to say I'm the one who can't possibly admit I'm wrong. That's rich...really rich.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: NeoV
Doc - cut the 'I'm smarter than you guys' attitude, and do a little reading yourself. Much of the anti-GW spew you just put out there is either false or quite misleading.

-snip-

Global warming or no global warming - what is the harm in converting our automobile 'fleet' to less gas-consuming, less-pollution emitting vehicles? Even if you don't think man is contributing to climate change, does that also mean you don't think air quality matters? Do you think it's ok for us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars buying oil from countries that for the most part hate us?
Well....maybe you're smarter than me...but please show me where I'm wrong...and please be specific as I don't like boxing shadows.

Of course I'm concerned about air quality and energy dependence....but what does this have to do with the validity of current MMGW theory?

Edit for clarity.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

He has a degree in physics as well.

He was commenting on the cost effectiveness of limiting global warming via CO2 caps.

Basically his argument is this:

It seems like global warming might not be happening, as there are plenty of pieces of evidence which contradict the models. Given this, is it wise to blow a metric fuckton of money on measures which we don't even know will work? Furthermore, if we do decide that cooling the earth is something we want to do, there are cheaper and more effective ways of doing it than a CO2 cap and trade.

Yes, it is wise, it's called hedging your bets.

A degree in physics does not make you immune to pressure, or stupidity.

You understand that blowing all that money costs us right, it is the idea of opportunity costs. With that money we could fund cancer research, aids research, or any other number of things that we know could save lives. And when we are talking about the huge amount of money we may need to spend to control emissions, that causes a huge impact on peoples livelihoods. When you reduce income, life expectancies decrease. In effect, you shorten people's lives. I wish people understood that money is not something you can throw at a problem, it costs us things somewhere else.

What might happen if we ignore the issue or procrastinate with regards to how we should proceed? Like I said, I like to hedge my bets.

Given our past record, I doubt if all this money would be dedicated to saving lives if it is not spent on reducing global warming.

I am not a scientist, but when I touch my tv or my fridge, they are warm. Is the global population increasing? Does that equate to more fridges and more tv's?



 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,499
7,557
136
Originally posted by: piasabird
You can not make any kind of real reduction of Carbon in a short period of time because it takes 100 times longer to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere than it does to create it. Some carbon is added just by using fertilizer.

http://www.everything2.com/ind...arming&lastnode_id=124

Carbon Molecules stay in the air for about 100 years!

http://www.everything2.com/ind...=1690658&lastnode_id=0

What caused the Last Ice Age with no Human intervention?

I dont think O'Bamma or the EPA know what they are doing.

One does not simply question the church piasabird! You've gotta take it on faith or be called a denier, a heretic, a crazy person.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: piasabird
You can not make any kind of real reduction of Carbon in a short period of time because it takes 100 times longer to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere than it does to create it. Some carbon is added just by using fertilizer.

http://www.everything2.com/ind...arming&lastnode_id=124

Carbon Molecules stay in the air for about 100 years!

http://www.everything2.com/ind...=1690658&lastnode_id=0

What caused the Last Ice Age with no Human intervention?

I dont think O'Bamma or the EPA know what they are doing.

One does not simply question the church piasabird! You've gotta take it on faith or be called a denier, a heretic, a crazy person.

Your tv feels cool?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,329
48,593
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.
Tell me o wise one...is he factually wrong?

We've had this discussion before, and the answer is yes. You've also tried some of the same bogus crap in here and been shown to be wrong. It just bounces straight off you and you come back with the same arguments again and again, but that's because you're not interested in the science. It's pointless to discuss this with you, I've tried before and simply run into a wall of blind anti-gw ideology again and again. Since you can't possibly admit you're wrong, why bother?

For whatever reason AT/Dailytech is a haven for global warming deniers, I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it doesn't really matter anymore though, as you are in such a small minority by this point that without an anti-environmental president in office to block GW legislation, you've lost.
You're so full of it. Remember this thread? Perhaps you recall that I asked you several times to respond to my last post in that thread. It's time for you to quit running and 'prove' me wrong...time to put up or shut up.

The irony here is that you have the nerve to say I'm the one who can't possibly admit I'm wrong. That's rich...really rich.

I remember that thread very well, yes. The reason I didn't answer you in that thread is because you had already been given the answer in previous threads... and it bounced right off your wall of anti-gw ideology. (in fact I explicitly stated that in the thread)

I like how I'm 'running' from you by not repeating the same arguments to you over and over and over again despite you having repeatedly proven yourself immune to reason. I can't help you, I'm sorry.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: piasabird
You can not make any kind of real reduction of Carbon in a short period of time because it takes 100 times longer to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere than it does to create it. Some carbon is added just by using fertilizer.

http://www.everything2.com/ind...arming&lastnode_id=124

Carbon Molecules stay in the air for about 100 years!

http://www.everything2.com/ind...=1690658&lastnode_id=0

What caused the Last Ice Age with no Human intervention?

I dont think O'Bamma or the EPA know what they are doing.

One does not simply question the church piasabird! You've gotta take it on faith or be called a denier, a heretic, a crazy person.


Oh please! Don't make out as if other people's thought processes are similiar to your own.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

Yeah a BS in physics from Caltech and a PhD in Econo-mathematics from MIT... im sure the guy is as stupid as they come.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

Yeah a BS in physics from Caltech and a PhD in Econo-mathematics from MIT... im sure the guy is as stupid as they come.

I definitely agree that attention should be drawn to this guy's BS.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.

Yeah a BS in physics from Caltech and a PhD in Econo-mathematics from MIT... im sure the guy is as stupid as they come.

Yeah, none of the stuff you mention qualifies him to perform brain surgery either. Just because he's smart doesn't mean he knows jack or shit about climate science. Your "argument" is full of fail.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. Guys, this is an ECONOMIST whining that SCIENTISTS didn't include the personal, non-original research of an unqualified individual into a report. The real scandal would have been if the EPA was allowing people like this who have no fucking clue about the climate significantly influence the reports the agency puts out. The guy is simply and totally unqualified. Thumbs up to the EPA.
Tell me o wise one...is he factually wrong?

We've had this discussion before, and the answer is yes. You've also tried some of the same bogus crap in here and been shown to be wrong. It just bounces straight off you and you come back with the same arguments again and again, but that's because you're not interested in the science. It's pointless to discuss this with you, I've tried before and simply run into a wall of blind anti-gw ideology again and again. Since you can't possibly admit you're wrong, why bother?

For whatever reason AT/Dailytech is a haven for global warming deniers, I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it doesn't really matter anymore though, as you are in such a small minority by this point that without an anti-environmental president in office to block GW legislation, you've lost.
You're so full of it. Remember this thread? Perhaps you recall that I asked you several times to respond to my last post in that thread. It's time for you to quit running and 'prove' me wrong...time to put up or shut up.

The irony here is that you have the nerve to say I'm the one who can't possibly admit I'm wrong. That's rich...really rich.

I remember that thread very well, yes. The reason I didn't answer you in that thread is because you had already been given the answer in previous threads... and it bounced right off your wall of anti-gw ideology. (in fact I explicitly stated that in the thread)

I like how I'm 'running' from you by not repeating the same arguments to you over and over and over again despite you having repeatedly proven yourself immune to reason. I can't help you, I'm sorry.
In that thread you argued that GCR theory was debunked by Terry Sloan when in fact it wasn't. After Svensmark's findings were published there were three studies conducted...two of which fully corroborated Svensmark's findings; however, you pointed to a BBC article which cited a third study (Sloan and Wolfendale) that questioned certain aspects of his theory. You obviously ignored those studies that corroborated Svensmark's findings and focused on the one that didn't fully corroborate it. The Sloan and Wolfendale paper the article referenced concluded that no more than 23% of the changes of the cloudiness during the 11-year cycles is caused by cosmic rays. It did NOT conclude that GCR was debunked. Perhaps this little tidbit was lost on you since you obviously didn't read or failed to understand the conclusion of the study cited...it appears that you based you position solely on an BBC article caption that was obviously inaccurate. Furthermore, the Sloan and Wolfendale paper cited was highly criticized by the scientific community which I addressed in great detail in that thread. It's beyond me how a rational human being can conclude that solar/climate link was debunked based on Sloan's highly flawed paper. But perhaps, therein lies the rub.

Since that time, there have been numerous other studies that show a huge solar/climate link. Scafetta & West (2007) suggest that as much as 69% of Earth's temperature variations can be attributed to this link. They also conclude that "the sun is influencing climate significantly more than the IPCC report claims," and that "the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly over-estimated."

Jasper Kirkby at CERN states the following in his recent paper COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE (Jasper Kirkby CERN 2008)
"Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate."

"Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically-plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate."

"CONCLUSIONS
Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations. But is the GCR flux directly affecting the climate or merely acting as a proxy for variations of the solar irradiance or a spectral component such as UV? Here, there is some palaeoclimatic evidence for associations of the climate with geomagnetic and galactic modulations of the GCR flux, which, if confirmed, point to a direct GCR-climate forcing. Moreover, numerous studies have reported meteorological responses to short-term changes of cosmic rays or the global electrical current, which are unambiguously associated with ionising particle radiation.

Cosmic ray forcing of the climate could in principle operate on all time scales from days to hundreds of millions of years, reflecting the characteristic time scales for changes in the Sun?s magnetic activity, Earth?s magnetic field, and the galactic environment of the solar system. Moreover the climate forcing would act simultaneously, and with the same sign, across the globe. This would both allow a large climatic response from a relatively small forcing and also give rise to simultaneous regional climate responses without any clear teleconnection path. The most persuasive palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/GCR forcing involves sub-orbital (centennial and millennial) climate variability over the Holocene, for which there is no established forcing agent at present. Increased GCR flux appears to be associated with a cooler climate, a southerly shift of the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) and a weakening of the monsoon; and decreased GCR flux is associated with a warmer climate, a northerly shift of the ITCZ and a strengthening of the monsoon (increased rainfall). The influence on the ITCZ may imply significant changes of upper tropospheric water vapour in the tropics and sub-tropics, potentially affecting
both long-wave absorption and the availability of water vapour for cirrus clouds.

The most likely mechanism for a putative GCR-climate forcing is an influence of ionisation on clouds, as suggested by satellite observations and supported by theoretical and modelling studies. The 31 satellite data suggest that decreased GCR flux is associated with decreased low altitude clouds, which are known to exert globally a net radiative cooling effect. Studies of Forbush decreases and solar proton events further suggest that decreased GCR flux may reduce high altitude (polar stratospheric) clouds in the Antarctic. Candidate microphysical processes include ion-induced nucleation of new aerosols from
trace condensable vapours, and the formation of relatively highly charged aerosols and cloud droplets at cloud boundaries, which may enhance the formation of ice particles in clouds and affect the collision efficiencies of aerosols with cloud droplets. Although recent observations support the presence of ioninduced nucleation of new aerosols in the atmosphere, the possible contribution of such new particles to
changes in the number of cloud condensation nuclei remains an open question. Furthermore, the parts of the globe and atmosphere that would be expected to be the most climatically sensitive to such processes are unknown, although they are likely to involve regions of low existing CCN concentrations.

Despite these uncertainties, the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out. With new experiments planned or underway, such as the CLOUD facility at CERN, there are good prospects that we will have some firm answers to this question within the next few years."

Eskimospy, it's now painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. GCR theory has not been debunked. The solar/climate link is significant and now widely known and accepted...research is currently focusing on details of the mechanism and the magnitude on our climate. Perhaps you should consider staying on the sidelines when this topic is discussed in the future and avoid further embarrassment and public display of your abject ignorance on the subject.

Edit: typos
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,418
8,370
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
actually, assuming he was deeply into econometrics, he'd be very well qualified to consider the regressions needed to analyze the huge multivariable functions that describe the climate.

statisticians are the same way.

analysis of mathematics (which is really all this stuff is) isn't limited to one field.

My ass. Climate science is one hell of a lot bigger than running some mutivariate regressions. Actually about five hells of a lot bigger than that. If you are seriously arguing that an economist is qualified to in effect peer review papers on climatology outside of a small area of them, you are simply incorrect.

He was not arguing that they had made some errors in their regression tables, or that their math was wrong, in the article he is talking about GW's effect on Atlantic hurricanes, Greenland's ice sheets, etc... etc. He's basically parroting global warming denier arguments.

Absolutely ridiculous.

the computer models are just huge equations, and that is a lot of what we're basing our actions on. the global warming crisis wouldn't be anything without those models. i wouldn't call the primary evidence behind trillion dollar decisions 'a small factor.'

i'm not defending this guy's argument per se, i'm arguing your apparent assumptions that a) economists aren't scientists (on the contrary, a good many of them are doing their darnedest to turn the field into physics); and b) therefore, that they can't have important and insightful input into climate science.

here's a question for you: how many colleges offer 'climatology' degrees?


Originally posted by: umbrella39

Yeah, none of the stuff you mention qualifies him to perform brain surgery either. Just because he's smart doesn't mean he knows jack or shit about climate science. Your "argument" is full of fail.

how many people have you ever run into with degrees in 'climate science'?


the whole field is chock full of physics and math grads. the global warming point man in the US, dr. james hansen, whose testimony to congress in 1988 really got the ball rolling on AGW, has degrees in math, physics, and astronomy.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
Doc - I appreciate your level-headedness (is that a word) in your response.

The scientific consensus is in: human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a rise in temperatures across the planet. There are still those who reject the evidence that humans have an impact on global temperatures, and instead maintain that natural processes are at the root.

One of these natural causes, they say, could be from cosmic rays.

According to one paper, published in 2000 to Physics Review Letters, the Hunacayo neutron monitor detected a heightened number of cosmic rays from regions that had low clouds, less than 3.2 km in altitude. The quantity of these cosmic rays depends on the intensity of the solar wind, since the Earth?s magnetosphere grows and shrinks depending on the strength of particles streaming from the Sun. Periods of warming appear to correlate with a decreases in cosmic rays over the 20th century.

When the cosmic rays interact with the Earth?s atmosphere, especially the low level clouds, they create ions of varying strength and charge. These ions would then contribute to the formation of dense clouds, blocking the Sun?s rays and reducing the effect of heating.

This connection between the Sun?s 11-year cycle of sunspot and solar wind activity and the Earth?s deflection of cosmic rays was offered up as a possible natural explanation for global warming.

But T. Sloan from the University of Lancaster and A.W. Wolfendale from
Durham University have looked carefully at the evidence and found it unconvincing. They published their results in a new paper called Cosmic Rays and Global Warming. Their research will be presented at the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, held in Merida Mexico from July 3 - July 11, 2007.

According to Sloan and Wolfendale, the 2000 paper highlighting the connection between cosmic rays and low-level clouds completely avoids clouds at other altitudes. This is surprising because cosmic ray ionization should increase with altitude. Cosmic rays should be intercepted earlier by the atmosphere and turned into clouds, not down at the lowest altitudes. If cosmic rays were to blame, you would expect the exact opposite, with more high-altitude clouds.

It can?t be ruled out, but it?s pretty unlikely.

The next piece of skeptical evidence is the likelihood that cosmic rays will create ions that turn into water droplets. The researchers estimated the density of cloud droplets that could be produced by cosmic rays at the lowest altitudes. They found that the rate of ion production was too low generate the number of water droplets required to create clouds.

Global warming skeptics explain the cosmic ray/cloud cover/global warming natural cycle as the interaction between the Sun?s 11-year cycle of solar activity and the magnitude of cosmic rays that reach the
Earth?s atmosphere. As the solar wind increases, it buffets away cosmic rays that would reach the Earth?s magnetosphere.

Ionized particles are channeled towards the Earth?s poles, which is why we see the beautiful auroras at the highest latitudes. If cosmic rays were causing additional cloud cover, you would expect the greatest variations around the poles. This isn?t the case; in fact, the opposite is true.

Furthermore, there?s known to be a 6-14 month delay between the decrease of cosmic ray activity, and the increase in the number of sun spots. Based on these cycles, the researchers found almost no correlation between the rise and fall of sun spots, and levels of cloud cover. They estimated that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.

If scientists wanted to study the interaction between radiation and cloud cover they could always perform a highly unethical experiment:
release a tremendous amount of radiation into the atmosphere and see what it does to clouds in the environment.

Unfortunately, that experiment has already been performed? accidentally: the Chernobyl disaster.

On April 26th, 1986 the reactor released a huge cloud of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. If radiation increases cloud cover, there should have been clouds surrounding the facility for weeks. There was no evidence of unusual cloud coverage surrounding the facility after the disaster.

Sloan and Wolfendale reviewed the cosmic ray connection to global warming, and found several different ways that discount the explanation. Of course, no matter how good their evidence, for some people this is a political matter now - no amount evidence will ever be enough.

"There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That?s because there?s no trend in cosmic rays. It?s completely bogus,"
remarked Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA researcher

http://www.wired.com/wiredscie...07/07/no-link-between/

 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
actually, assuming he was deeply into econometrics, he'd be very well qualified to consider the regressions needed to analyze the huge multivariable functions that describe the climate.

statisticians are the same way.

analysis of mathematics (which is really all this stuff is) isn't limited to one field.

My ass. Climate science is one hell of a lot bigger than running some mutivariate regressions. Actually about five hells of a lot bigger than that. If you are seriously arguing that an economist is qualified to in effect peer review papers on climatology outside of a small area of them, you are simply incorrect.

He was not arguing that they had made some errors in their regression tables, or that their math was wrong, in the article he is talking about GW's effect on Atlantic hurricanes, Greenland's ice sheets, etc... etc. He's basically parroting global warming denier arguments.

Absolutely ridiculous.

the computer models are just huge equations, and that is a lot of what we're basing our actions on. the global warming crisis wouldn't be anything without those models. i wouldn't call the primary evidence behind trillion dollar decisions 'a small factor.'

i'm not defending this guy's argument per se, i'm arguing your apparent assumptions that a) economists aren't scientists (on the contrary, a good many of them are doing their darnedest to turn the field into physics); and b) therefore, that they can't have important and insightful input into climate science.

here's a question for you: how many colleges offer 'climatology' degrees?


Originally posted by: umbrella39

Yeah, none of the stuff you mention qualifies him to perform brain surgery either. Just because he's smart doesn't mean he knows jack or shit about climate science. Your "argument" is full of fail.

how many people have you ever run into with degrees in 'climate science'?


the whole field is chock full of physics and math grads. the global warming point man in the US, dr. james hansen, whose testimony to congress in 1988 really got the ball rolling on AGW, has degrees in math, physics, and astronomy.

Look, i'm just a simple Cpt (or was) and even i get this issue, cimatology is an expanding science that has a lot to do with ALL of the sciences you mentioned without having to do with one as a single one.

This twat has a political agenda, sure, he's a scientist like Dr Phil is a fucking doctor, that Dr Phil is a dentist does not make him a psychologist any more than this fuckup is a climatologist, are we fucking clear on that?

I think we are, so let's evaluate his positions, he has no support, has presented NO evidence and isn't even part of the group he claims he was excluded from, never was.

So is this group biased for excluding someone who was never in this group, who doesn't have the qualifications required to be there and has absolutely no research to substantiate his findings which are purely political?

Riddle me that.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
You think this is a ruckus, I can't wait till they find the white house memo criticizing intelligent design. Liberals are SO closed minded.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: jonks
You think this is a ruckus, I can't wait till they find the white house memo criticizing intelligent design. Liberals are SO closed minded.

We sure are, we don't let mysterious sheit cloud our judgement.

I'm English and i'm very very proud to be a liberal (party member of the liberal democratic party (to spell it out so you know what the fuck it means) since forever but still going to vote for the Tories next time since anything is better then GB.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,418
8,370
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

This twat has a political agenda, sure, he's a scientist like Dr Phil is a fucking doctor, that Dr Phil is a dentist does not make him a psychologist any more than this fuckup is a climatologist, are we fucking clear on that?
the guy may have a political agenda, but realize that climatologist is a job title, whereas psychology is something you can actually go to school for. to the extent this guy could use the math skills he gained getting a BS in physics from caltech and a PhD in econo-mathematics from MIT, he would be a valuable scientist.

just like i would expect a statistician to be able to evaluate whether a clinical psychologist performed the proper procedure in analyzing their data, i would expect that this guy would be able to use his critical skills to determine potential pit falls in the giant multivariable computer models used by physicists, statisticians, and geoscientists to come to the conclusion that 1) GW exists, 2) AGW exists, 3) either is actually a problem, and 4) whether we can do anything about either.

to the extent he is not using any of those skills, i am making no argument in this thread. my sole beef is with eskimospy's apparent assumption that
Originally posted by: eskimospy
ECONOMISTS
are not qualified to critique
Originally posted by: eskimospy
SCIENTISTS


Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
< snip >
Riddle me that.
maybe you should re-read this:
Originally posted by: ElFenix

i'm not defending this guy's argument per se, i'm arguing your apparent assumptions that a) economists aren't scientists (on the contrary, a good many of them are doing their darnedest to turn the field into physics); and b) therefore, that they can't have important and insightful input into climate science.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,329
48,593
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Eskimospy, it's now painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. GCR theory has not been debunked. The solar/climate link is significant and now widely known and accepted...research is currently focusing on details of the mechanism and the magnitude on our climate. Perhaps you should consider staying on the sidelines when this topic is discussed in the future and avoid further embarrassment and public display of your abject ignorance on the subject.

Edit: typos

Doc, we've talked about this all before. You're full of shit. I've showed you how you are full of shit, and how your conclusions are completely unwarranted from the research. Now you're attempting to strawman my former arguments in a pathetic attempt to get over your extreme butthurt from me constantly showing you up. This is why I do not discuss things with you, and it is why I say you are immune to reason.

I for one was just content that you had stopped following me from thread to thread pulling on my shirtsleeve looking for attention, now that I made the mistake of giving you some I've remembered why I told you to get fucked to begin with.