Are all "climate change" bets off, now that the earth has shifted on its axis?

[Oddball]

IOW, Jones and his goof troop are just guessing.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate//Viewzone

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study COPENHAGEN (AFP) -- The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

I mean, it's just DANISH scientists and all.... Clearly beholden to Big Danish Oil conglomerates.....

You fucking moron. Did you even KNOW about this, before reading this thread?

Viewzone, one of those tinfoil hat web sites.

Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Yep, all them thar pointy headed librul scientists in all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academys of Science, and all the major Universities in the world just dumb.

Not them, just you.

And like you, they have a political agenda.

 

[Mini 14]

We have less than 100 years of "reliable data (and even that is a cavernous leap to qualify early 20th century data as "accurate" or "reliable").

Earth is over 4,000,000,000 years old......

How can ANYONE think that the first 100 years of measurable data mean SHIT!?!?

We have .000000025 of the actual available data, and yet, Old Rocks and others think we can make decisions accurate enough to affect global social, political, and economic policy.

You are all arrogant, ignorant fucking loons.

Earth didn't arrive the day you were born, and it won't die the day you leave.

Fucking idiots.....

 

[daveman]

I can grasp from what I see of your posts that you are neither.

And now you prove that your estimation of someone's intelligence is based solely on whether or not they agree with you.

Why is it you leftists can't make an argument without redefining all the terms?

Oh, yeah. You can't claim you won otherwise.

 

[edthecynic]

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate//Viewzone

I mean, it's just DANISH scientists and all.... Clearly beholden to Big Danish Oil conglomerates.....

You fucking moron. Did you even KNOW about this, before reading this thread?

Viewzone, one of those tinfoil hat web sites.

Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.

Of course it does, and you know it!

It has no relevance to science or you would have posted a link to a scientific web site rather than to a whacko conspiracy web site.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Viewzone, one of those tinfoil hat web sites.

Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.

Of course it does, and you know it!

It has no relevance to science or you would have posted a link to a scientific web site rather than to a whacko conspiracy web site.

The study is real, was recently published, and was peer reviewed.

Contest it.

 

[code1211]

Yep, all them thar pointy headed librul scientists in all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academys of Science, and all the major Universities in the world just dumb. And you just posted this on a computer hooked to the internet, and the irony did not occur to you.

Bobbing and weaving to avoid being hit by the vitriol and the insults....

It is interesting that the Magnetic North Pole has been tracked to have moved a pretty good distance since 1831 when its position was first pegged.

Since that date, it has moved more than twenty degrees of latitude north. Each degree of latitude is about 70 miles.

Coincidentally, the start of the big warming that is attributed to CO2 started in, wait for it....

Wait....

You guessed it!

1850!

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Jarring Chord}}}}}}}}}}}}

As the MNP moves north, it takes the Northern Lights with it. It changes the orientation, or rather is changed by the orientation, of the magnetic field of the planet. That same magnetic field that deflects enough of the Sun's radiation, the Solar Wind, to avoid having the atmosphere stripped away from our planet as it was from Mars.

Interesting that two things should happen so concurrently and one, CO2, is responsible for the warming of the planet and the other, which obviously has so many other strong and dramatic effects on the planet and the impact on the planet of Solar Radiation, has nothing at all to do with Global Climate.

It seems like maybe it should be considered as a part of group of possibilites

Interesting...


Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field - NASA Science

 

[Old Rocks]

So were these. And the graphs are up to date, and show that there is absolutely no corelation between the present warming and cosmic rays.

Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?

"In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change."

Numerous studies have also investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation (the third step). Kazil et al. (2006) found:


"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."

Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found:


"we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:


"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Kulmala et al. (2010) also found

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

 

[edthecynic]

Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.

Of course it does, and you know it!

It has no relevance to science or you would have posted a link to a scientific web site rather than to a whacko conspiracy web site.

The study is real, was recently published, and was peer reviewed.

Contest it.

This crapola theory has already been debunked which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.

From your whacko web site link:

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

From a real scientific web site:
Scientists: No link cloud coverage and global warming

Carnegie Mellon University's Peter Adams along with Jeff Pierce from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, have developed a model to test a controversial hypothesis that says changes in the sun are causing global warming.
The hypothesis they tested was that increased solar activity reduces cloudiness by changing cosmic rayshttp://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html#. So, when clouds decrease, more sunlight is let in, causing the earth to warm. Some skeptics have tried to use this hypothesis to suggest that greenhouse gases may not be the global warming culprits that most scientists agree they are.
In research published in Geophysical Research Letters, and highlighted in the May 1 edition of Science Magazine, Adams and Pierce report the first atmospheric simulations of changes in atmospheric ions and particle formation resulting from variations in the sun and cosmic rays. They find that changes in the concentration of particles that affect clouds are 100 times too small to affect the climate.
"Until now, proponents of this hypothesis could assert that the sun may be causing global warming because no one had a computer model to really test the claims," said Adams, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon.
"The basic problem with the hypothesis is that solar variations probably change new particle formation rates by less than 30 percent in the atmosphere. Also, these particles are extremely small and need to grow before they can affect clouds. Most do not survive to do so," Adams said.
Despite remaining questions, Adams and Pierce feel confident that this hypothesis should be laid to rest. "No computer simulation of something as complex as the atmosphere will ever be perfect," Adams said. "Proponents of the cosmic ray hypothesis will probably try to question these results, but the effect is so weak in our model that it is hard for us to see this basic result changing."

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?

No bias on that site!

 

[edthecynic]

So were these. And the graphs are up to date, and show that there is absolutely no corelation between the present warming and cosmic rays.

Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?

"In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change."

Numerous studies have also investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation (the third step). Kazil et al. (2006) found:


"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."

Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found:


"we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:


"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Kulmala et al. (2010) also found

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

You beat me to it!

 

[Old Rocks]

ACP - Abstract - Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1885-1898, 2010
www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1885/2010/
doi:10.5194/acp-10-1885-2010
© Author(s) 2010. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation

M. Kulmala1, I. Riipinen1,2, T. Nieminen1, M. Hulkkonen1, L. Sogacheva1,3, H. E. Manninen1, P. Paasonen1, T. Petäjä1, M. Dal Maso1, P. P. Aalto1, A. Viljanen3, I. Usoskin4, R. Vainio1, S. Mirme5, A. Mirme5, A. Minikin6, A. Petzold6, U. Hõrrak5, C. Plaß-Dülmer7, W. Birmili8, and V.-M. Kerminen3
1University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
2Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
3Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
4Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu Unit), University of Oulu, Sodankylä, Finland
5University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
6Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Wessling, Germany
7Meteorologisches Observatorium Hohenpeissenberg, Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Hohenpeissenberg, Germany
8Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, German

Abstract. Aerosol particles affect the Earth's radiative balance by directly scattering and absorbing solar radiation and, indirectly, through their activation into cloud droplets. Both effects are known with considerable uncertainty only, and translate into even bigger uncertainties in future climate predictions. More than a decade ago, variations in galactic cosmic rays were suggested to closely correlate with variations in atmospheric cloud cover and therefore constitute a driving force behind aerosol-cloud-climate interactions. Later, the enhancement of atmospheric aerosol particle formation by ions generated from cosmic rays was proposed as a physical mechanism explaining this correlation. Here, we report unique observations on atmospheric aerosol formation based on measurements at the SMEAR II station, Finland, over a solar cycle (years 1996–2008) that shed new light on these presumed relationships. Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined the contribution of ions to new particle formation on the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations. A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes typically significantly less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between CRII and aerosol formation. Our main conclusion is that galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This crapola theory has already been debunked

It has not. This is a NEW study. It is peer reviewed, and published. Everything you and OldCrocks are linking is OLD crap that tried to "debunk" the original, 11 year-old theory. Not this one.

which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.

You do your research as sloppily as you do your thinking. The SOURCE of the story isn't viewzone. It's AFP. Know what that is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can grasp from what I see of your posts that you are neither.

And now you prove that your estimation of someone's intelligence is based solely on whether or not they agree with you.

Why is it you leftists can't make an argument without redefining all the terms?

Oh, yeah. You can't claim you won otherwise.

Yep,

 

[Midnight Marauder]

ACP - Abstract - Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation

"Of COURSE the earth is round! But it's STILL flat. Like a PIZZA!" -- OldCrocks

 

[edthecynic]

This crapola theory has already been debunked

It has not. This is a NEW study. It is peer reviewed, and published. Everything you and OldCrocks are linking is OLD crap that tried to "debunk" the original, 11 year-old theory. Not this one.

which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.

You do your research as sloppily as you do your thinking. The SOURCE of the story isn't viewzone. It's AFP. Know what that is?

Then why won't you LINK to the "source?"

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This crapola theory has already been debunked

It has not. This is a NEW study. It is peer reviewed, and published. Everything you and OldCrocks are linking is OLD crap that tried to "debunk" the original, 11 year-old theory. Not this one.

which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.

You do your research as sloppily as you do your thinking. The SOURCE of the story isn't viewzone. It's AFP. Know what that is?

Then why won't you LINK to the "source?"

The source is credited in the article I linked.

Do you know what AFP is?

 

[Old Rocks]

The whole article is available and can be downloaded.

http://atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

The magnitude of the Sun’s contribution to 20th century climate variations has been the subject of some controversy, and many possible mechanisms have been suggested. Ten years ago, a link between the flux of ionizing galactic cosmic rays (GCR), modulated by solar activity, and global cloud cover was proposed by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997). They proposed that the GCR flux stimulates the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in the atmosphere, and that the higher CCN concentrations at times of high GCR fluxes would lead to increased cloud cover and a cooling of
the Earth’s climate. Three years later the hypothesis was modified to involve a GCR correlation to low clouds only (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000). High and statistically significant correlations between GCR and low cloud cover were presented, based on data for the period 1983–1994 from the
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), using infrared sensors only.

Numerous reassessments were subsequently published(e.g., Kristj´ansson and Kristiansen, 2000; Udelhofen and Cess, 2001; Kristj´ansson et al., 2002; Laut, 2003; Damon and Laut, 2004), questioning both the physical and statistical basis for the earlier conclusions on cause and effect. Kristj´ansson et al. (2002, 2004), adding new data up to the year 2001 to the ISCCP time series, showed that the ISCCP

 

[Old Rocks]

The whole article is available and can be downloaded.

http://atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

The magnitude of the Sun’s contribution to 20th century climate variations has been the subject of some controversy, and many possible mechanisms have been suggested. Ten years ago, a link between the flux of ionizing galactic cosmic rays (GCR), modulated by solar activity, and global cloud cover was proposed by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997). They proposed that the GCR flux stimulates the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in the atmosphere, and that the higher CCN concentrations at times of high GCR fluxes would lead to increased cloud cover and a cooling of
the Earth’s climate. Three years later the hypothesis was modified to involve a GCR correlation to low clouds only (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000). High and statistically significant correlations between GCR and low cloud cover were presented, based on data for the period 1983–1994 from the
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), using infrared sensors only.

Numerous reassessments were subsequently published(e.g., Kristj´ansson and Kristiansen, 2000; Udelhofen and Cess, 2001; Kristj´ansson et al., 2002; Laut, 2003; Damon and Laut, 2004), questioning both the physical and statistical basis for the earlier conclusions on cause and effect. Kristj´ansson et al. (2002, 2004), adding new data up to the year 2001 to the ISCCP time series, showed that the ISCCP