IOW, Jones and his goof troop are just guessing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.Viewzone, one of those tinfoil hat web sites.The earth's magnetic field impacts climate//Viewzone
I mean, it's just DANISH scientists and all.... Clearly beholden to Big Danish Oil conglomerates.....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.
You fucking moron. Did you even KNOW about this, before reading this thread?
Not them, just you.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 now you prove that your estimation of someone's intelligence is based solely on whether or not they agree with you.I can grasp from what I see of your posts that you are neither.
Of course it does, and you know it!Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.Viewzone, one of those tinfoil hat web sites.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?
The study is real, was recently published, and was peer reviewed.Of course it does, and you know it!Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.Viewzone, one of those tinfoil hat web sites.
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.
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.
This crapola theory has already been debunked which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.The study is real, was recently published, and was peer reviewed.Of course it does, and you know it!Does not change the study, its publication, or its relevance.
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.
Contest it.
From a real scientific web site: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.
No bias on that site!
You beat me to it!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."
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.This crapola theory has already been debunked
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?which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.
And now you prove that your estimation of someone's intelligence is based solely on whether or not they agree with you.I can grasp from what I see of your posts that you are neither.
Why is it you leftists can't make an argument without redefining all the terms?
Oh, yeah. You can't claim you won otherwise.
"Of COURSE the earth is round! But it's STILL flat. Like a PIZZA!" -- OldCrocksACP - Abstract - Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation
Then why won't you LINK to the "source?"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.This crapola theory has already been debunkedYou 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?which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.
The source is credited in the article I linked.Then why won't you LINK to the "source?"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.This crapola theory has already been debunkedYou 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?which is why you linked to a whacko conspiracy web site rather than a scientific web site.