Yet more evidence that Cosmic Rays Affect Climate More than Man

Two Suns? Twin Stars Could Be Visible From Earth By 2012

Dr. Brad Carter, Senior Lecturer of Physics at the University of Southern Queensland, outlined the scenario to news.com.au. Betelgeuse, one of the night sky’s brightest stars, is losing mass, indicating it is collapsing. It could run out of fuel and go super-nova at any time.

When that happens, for at least a few weeks, we’d see a second sun, Carter says. There may also be no night during that timeframe.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/two-suns-twin-stars_n_811864.html
 
Last edited:
So SUVs must make Cosmic Rays nothing else fits the ManMade Global Warming Climate Change Disruption Model
 
Two Suns? Twin Stars Could Be Visible From Earth By 2012

Dr. Brad Carter, Senior Lecturer of Physics at the University of Southern Queensland, outlined the scenario to news.com.au. Betelgeuse, one of the night sky’s brightest stars, is losing mass, indicating it is collapsing. It could run out of fuel and go super-nova at any time.

When that happens, for at least a few weeks, we’d see a second sun, Carter says. There may also be no night during that timeframe. Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post 2011/ 01/ 20/ two-suns-twin-stars_n_811864.html

I didnt see the article, is it this guy?

Beetlejuice.jpg
 
Two Suns? Twin Stars Could Be Visible From Earth By 2012

Dr. Brad Carter, Senior Lecturer of Physics at the University of Southern Queensland, outlined the scenario to news.com.au. Betelgeuse, one of the night sky’s brightest stars, is losing mass, indicating it is collapsing. It could run out of fuel and go super-nova at any time.

When that happens, for at least a few weeks, we’d see a second sun, Carter says. There may also be no night during that timeframe. Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post 2011/ 01/ 20/ two-suns-twin-stars_n_811864.html
could you fix your link
it just goes to the main huffypuffy page
 
Access : Atmospheric physics: Cosmic rays, clouds and climate : Nature

Atmospheric physics: Cosmic rays, clouds and climate
Ken Carslaw1

Top of pageAbstractGalactic cosmic rays could influence Earth's cloudiness by creating aerosol particles that prompt cloud formation. That possible effect looks to be smaller than thought, but the story won't end there.

Striking correlations have been observed between Earth's cloud cover and the flux of galactic cosmic rays entering our atmosphere. The decrease in galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux by about 15% over much of the twentieth century has led to the hypothesis that GCRs could influence climate through their effect on cloudiness.
 
I hope Betelguise goes super in my lifetime. That would be awesome (and harmless) to watch! It may have already exploded for all we know (what you see when you look at Orion is Betelguise about 600 years ago).

I hope this guy is right.

But I'm pretty sure he's bat-shit crazy instead :(
 
The former head of the Indian Space Agency has over 45 years of data that he has surveyed and he finds GCR's to be far more important than anything man is doing.

Top Indian space boffin beams down climate shocker ? The Register

This would be more impressive had he chosen to publish in Science or Nature, rather than The Register.



Except todays "science" is a closed society. You walk in step with the religion or you dont get to publish. Your data doesnt match the data of the annointed? See ya............:lol:

Think about a Baptist person trying to publish something in Tehran. I rest............
 
Last edited:
The former head of the Indian Space Agency has over 45 years of data that he has surveyed and he finds GCR's to be far more important than anything man is doing.

Top Indian space boffin beams down climate shocker ? The Register

This would be more impressive had he chosen to publish in Science or Nature, rather than The Register.



Except todays "science" is a closed society. You walk in step with the religion or you dont get to publish. Your data doesnt match the data of the annointed? See ya............:lol:

Think about a Baptist person trying to publish something in Tehran. I rest............


Your data must be supported by the observations of what is occurring in reality. Because if it is being pulled out of your backside it may get rejected. At least I would hope so.

Yes our understanding of the climate system is not good enough to accurately predict the exact raise in temperatures of the planet, but that is what science does...It expands our understanding of what is around us. If not for it we wouldn't have a billionth the understanding that we do.

Is the temperature stations perfect. No. There is a error in some of them of .05c within the giss for this. But it is better then having nothing and we are looking at the trend.
 
This would be more impressive had he chosen to publish in Science or Nature, rather than The Register.



Except todays "science" is a closed society. You walk in step with the religion or you dont get to publish. Your data doesnt match the data of the annointed? See ya............:lol:

Think about a Baptist person trying to publish something in Tehran. I rest............


Your data must be supported by the observations of what is occurring in reality. Because if it is being pulled out of your backside it may get rejected. At least I would hope so.

Yes our understanding of the climate system is not good enough to accurately predict the exact raise in temperatures of the planet, but that is what science does...It expands our understanding of what is around us. If not for it we wouldn't have a billionth the understanding that we do.

Is the temperature stations perfect. No. There is a error in some of them of .05c within the giss for this. But it is better then having nothing and we are looking at the trend.




That is certainly what real science does. What exactly have the climatologists added to the body of knowledge in the last 12 years that is actually significant? We've invested over 60 billion dollars in the last 12 years. What exactly have we gotten for that investment?
 
Come on, Walleyes, show us where you got that figure. Are you stating that all the science connected with climate, ARGOS, ice coring, paleo-climatology has yeilded no worthwhile data? That the earth observing satellites have yielded nothing of value?

No way can I believe that you are actually a scientist.
 
Come on, Walleyes, show us where you got that figure. Are you stating that all the science connected with climate, ARGOS, ice coring, paleo-climatology has yeilded no worthwhile data? That the earth observing satellites have yielded nothing of value?

No way can I believe that you are actually a scientist.




Show us one thing that climatologists have added to the collective knowledge base that is truly significant over the last 12 years. Forget the wasted money. Just show us one significant thing. There have been plenty of useful discoveries in METEOROLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY, GEOLOGY, OCEANOGRAPHY, but climatology?
 
Last edited:
This would be more impressive had he chosen to publish in Science or Nature, rather than The Register.



Except todays "science" is a closed society. You walk in step with the religion or you dont get to publish. Your data doesnt match the data of the annointed? See ya............:lol:

Think about a Baptist person trying to publish something in Tehran. I rest............


Your data must be supported by the observations of what is occurring in reality. Because if it is being pulled out of your backside it may get rejected. At least I would hope so.

Yes our understanding of the climate system is not good enough to accurately predict the exact raise in temperatures of the planet, but that is what science does...It expands our understanding of what is around us. If not for it we wouldn't have a billionth the understanding that we do.

Is the temperature stations perfect. No. There is a error in some of them of .05c within the giss for this. But it is better then having nothing and we are looking at the trend.



It is better than having nothing. However, the little that we do have is about enough to know that we don't have enough.

Right now, I have about as much confidence in the predictions of the Climate experts as I have in the bouncing of a roulette ball.

I know that both are going to happen and I know that I wouldn't bet on either one.
 
Last edited:
Go to Central Park in NYC on a nice warm summer day and look at the grooves in the rock outcroppings. They weren't caused by a dozer or a backhoe. They are evidence that a glacier came across Central Park dragging stones and boulders. What happened back then? It's the same sun and the same earth. Wooly mammoths didn't cause it. Neanderthals didn't do it. It's the sun stupid. Don't let the haters tell you that it's America's fault.
 

Forum List

Back
Top