New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Berzerker]

I'd expect more snow and rain with global warming, but not record cold down under

what is record cold down under?

[giblets]

Yep, looks like Australia is kind of cold.

[DaShi]

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/c...-records/12100

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4278069&page=1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/02/record-cold-weather-roundup-hundreds-of-new-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-last-week/

Here is just a few as example. I have noticed that the winter cold records do not get as much attention as the the summer heat records.
Just an observation I have noticed.

Then that's just your observation, since I can point to at least three articles off the top of my head about it.

[Docfeelgood]

Then that's just your observation, since I can point to at least three articles off the top of my head about it.

Here is just a few as example.

[DaShi]

You is write not as good.

[Docfeelgood]

You is write not as good.

noted. my bad

[Sava]

Oh yea, sorry about that.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

The author works at a think-tank called the Heartland Institute which worked with the tobacco industry questioning the science that links smoking to cancer.

[Sava]

sorry, still laughing because SOOOO STUPID

[Sava]

HEY, next, be sure to print an opinion piece from an early 17th century Vatican official regarding the motion of planetary bodies in our solar system

[Zevico]

HEY, next, be sure to print an opinion piece from an early 17th century Vatican official regarding the motion of planetary bodies in our solar system

The article cites a peer reviewed article. It links to said article. What is so outlandish about that?

[Sava]

The article cites a peer reviewed article. It links to said article. What is so outlandish about that?

Ahhh yes. Your "peer reviewed" golden boy even says this PR campaign is full of ****. Try reading the thread.

Or run around in circles... I don't care. Don't worry, you won't fall off the edge of the Earth.

But for heaven's sake, don't try to educate yourself. Leave that to professionals.

[Zevico]

[QUOTE=Sava;6002222]Ahhh yes. Your "peer reviewed" golden boy even says this PR campaign is full of ****. Try reading the thread.[/q]
Missed the subsequent article. Ah well. Look, frankly it's not my area of expertise so I won't deign to debate whether or not this particular scientific phenomenon exists as a matter of fact. By this I mean, I don't dispute the basic proposition that carbon, in sufficient amounts, may lead to a warmer atmosphere. That's a matter for scientists to discern by reference to such evidence as they may possess. Lay persons are ill equipped to make judgements such as these.
There is, however, a good deal of sense in acknowledging that no number of computer models will ever make up for precise scientific formulas that accurately measure the relationship between the various factors affecting the climate. Computer models are based on assumptions whose truth or veracity is, of its nature, in doubt. By contrast, those who funded the Manhattan Project knew quite well that a nuclear bomb was achievable. The formula e=mc squared, which basically explains a nuclear reaction, was known; the project was to design a bomb, not "discover" the science behind it.

We're not at that stage yet with the study of the climate. Carbon is not the sole factor affecting the global average temperature and we don't know how to measure the others and predict their future effects with reasonable accuracy; viz, because we are not in possession of a scientific formula outlining how these factors affect one another and the temperature of the earth. Frankly, there are so many variables that I find it hard to believe that scientists will ever reach the stage of a formula that measures climate with reasonable precision. I would welcome it if it occurred but I doubt it would happen in my lifetime.

[Dinner]

you expected better of oerdin?

Hey, it's the poster's job to post a link to the source not the reader's job to go hunting for it.

[Docfeelgood]

Hey, it's the poster's job to post a link to the source not the reader's job to go hunting for it.

[The Mad Monk]

So, anyway, I'm posting this here too...

CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment
What do these results mean? Not allowed to tell you

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 18th July 2011 12:01 GMT

Free whitepaper – The Advantages of Row and Rack-oriented Cooling Architectures for Data Centers

The chief of the world's leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN's proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?

Because, Heuer says, "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."


12m muons pass through your body every 24 hours
The unusual "gagging order" could have been issued because the results of CLOUD are really, really boring, muses Calder. Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate.

The CLOUD experiment builds on earlier experiments by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun's magnetic field and the strength of the Earth's magnetic field.


Close correlation between cosmic ray penetration and temperature

But how much? Speaking at a private event attended by El Reg earlier this year, Svensmark, who has nothing to do with CLOUD, wouldn't be drawn. He said he thought it was one of four significant factors: man-made factors, volcanoes, a "regime shift" in the mid-'70s, and cosmic rays.

The quantity of cosmic rays therefore has an influence on climate, but this isn't factored into the IPCC's "consensus" science at all.

According to Calder:

"CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It's OK to enter 'the highly political arena of the climate change debate' provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark's heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation."

Let's hope he's been misquoted. The precedents aren't happy. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/