Exxon Industry-paid Scientist reports that cosmic rays are penetrating his tinfoil hat
Hydrogen TRUTH
> ----------------------------http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9485/1066/
>
> Scientist reports that cosmic rays cause much of Earth?s global warming
> By William Atkins
> Tuesday, 13 February 2007
>
> Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has concluded that the Earth
> is experiencing less cloud cover because cosmic rays are not entering
> the atmosphere as frequently as normal. Consequently, Svensmark
.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Roger Coppock
to do with global warming. In science, the data
rules.
The Cosmic Ray Theory of Global Warming Fails A Basic Test!
Members of this newsgroup working for Carbon fuel industry
keep looking for some another cause for global warming other
than waste CO2 from their master's products. Lately they've
touted the theory that cosmic rays, not the CO2 from the
burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, are the cause of the
recent global warming.
For the cosmic-ray/global-warming link to be correct,
rising values of cosmic rays should bring rising temperatures
and falling cosmic rays fluxes should bring falling
temperatures. Correlation detects the reverse relationship
too. This is a necessary, but not a sufficient
condition for the link to be correct. A significant
correlation is not a proof of a causal link, but an
insignificant correlation is a certain disproof of a link.
A correlation is a statistical test on two variables that
produces a value called R. R is between -1 and 1, with
the negative numbers representing reverse relationships.
The square of R, a fraction between 0 and 1, indicates
how much the two variables follow each others ups and downs.
A value of 0 indicates that the variables are unrelated,
while a 1 shows that they are so strongly related that
they may be the same variable.
Please see:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html
Item 20 shows R squared for several graphed relationships.
The R squared value for a correlation between the cosmic
rays measured at Climax Colorado and the NASA GISS
global mean land and sea surface temperature is only 5%.
This low value virtually eliminates cosmic rays as a
cause of surface temperature change.
The equivalent R squared value for Mana Loa CO2 is 75%,
which indicates that there may be a strong CO2 temperature
link. It does not prove the link, however. For proof one
needs a mechanism, like the one established by Fourier,
Tyndall, and Arrhenius in the 19th century.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Cosmic ray data come from this directory:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp/pub/WDCCR/STATIONS/climax/cardformat/
The card data format is explained here:
http://www.env.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/ftp/pub/WDCCR/Read.me
Hourly data were converted into monthly means.
The NASA GISS monthly mean land and sea surface
temperature data are here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The December 2006 version was used.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Year Month CosRays AnnMean
1953 1 4129.95 10
1953 2 4156.06 18
1953 3 4144.46 16
1953 4 4150.14 19
1953 5 4152.47 8
1953 6 4175.26 5
1953 7 4159.51 5
1953 8 4167.63 10
1953 9 4172.84 10
1953 10 4194.07 10
1953 11 4189.03 1
1953 12 4214.99 16
1954 1 4225.47 -18
1954 2 4246.71 -4
1954 3 4285.40 -8
1954 4 4269.25 -10
1954 5 4279.96 -16
1954 6 4276.61 -13
1954 7 4284.05 -21
1954 8 4317.37 -17
1954 9 4308.23 -13
1954 10 4304.28 -3
1954 11 4286.22 12
1954 12 4268.76 -11
1955 1 4200.46 19
1955 2 4267.21 -13
1955 3 4272.40 -29
1955 4 4272.92 -16
1955 5 4287.15 -18
1955 6 4277.51 -12
1955 7 4278.71 -6
1955 8 4263.28 10
1955 9 4285.50 -7
1955 10 4245.06 1
1955 11 4251.59 -22
1955 12 4192.87 -28
1956 1 4233.75 -15
1956 2 4159.03 -24
1956 3 4097.10 -22
1956 4 4097.26 -21
1956 5 4048.55 -22
1956 6 4044.95 -13
1956 7 4087.51 -8
1956 8 4083.03 -25
1956 9 4044.21 -14
1956 10 4134.48 -20
1956 11 3980.06 -16
1956 12 3798.75 -7
1957 1 3677.03 -6
1957 2 3660.30 3
1957 3 3694.71 3
1957 4 3585.78 10
1957 5 3640.14 12
1957 6 3603.13 15
1957 7 3556.98 1
1957 8 3605.67 12
1957 9 3457.90 8
1957 10 3509.42 3
1957 11 3483.66 12
1957 12 3409.63 17
1958 1 3433.43 41
1958 2 3481.72 23
1958 3 3400.57 14
1958 4 3396.24 4
1958 5 3489.91 7
1958 6 3559.81 -8
1958 7 3466.63 8
1958 8 3536.72 -2
1958 9 3561.47 -3
1958 10 3564.34 5
1958 11 3588.93 5
1958 12 3542.28 4
1959 1 3573.44 11
1959 2 3525.71 12
1959 3 3606.12 22
1959 4 3663.83 15
1959 5 3567.40 10
1959 6 3633.31 7
1959 7 3367.19 7
1959 8 3419.34 1
1959 9 3484.08 -8
1959 10 3596.97 -3
1959 11 3614.79 -7
1959 12 3586.65 4
1960 1 3516.37 1
1960 2 3572.91 18
1960 3 3630.99 -32
1960 4 3532.23 -13
1960 5 3535.52 -6
1960 6 3588.83 -3
1960 7 3587.41 0
1960 8 3669.76 6
1960 9 3670.47 5
1960 10 3681.65 6
1960 11 3586.96 -10
1960 12 3681.22 20
1961 1 3762.21 5
1961 2 3800.69 21
1961 3 3818.68 10
1961 4 3800.47 11
1961 5 3843.05 22
1961 6 3837.81 13
1961 7 3670.66 1
1961 8 3784.08 3
1961 9 3833.60 8
1961 10 3869.89 7
1961 11 3955.27 5
1961 12 3950.17 -15
1962 1 3977.13 5
1962 2 3922.11 18
1962 3 3931.27 12
1962 4 3877.67 11
1962 5 3926.60 -10
1962 6 3940.55 7
1962 7 3950.71 -2
1962 8 3953.60 -5
1962 9 3923.71 2
1962 10 3919.41 1
1962 11 3963.29 8
1962 12 3971.27 0
1963 1 4048.80 1
1963 2 4073.42 19
1963 3 4064.70 -13
1963 4 4076.73 -7
1963 5 4034.13 -2
1963 6 4075.37 6
1963 7 4072.36 14
1963 8 4060.37 26
1963 9 4024.14 25
1963 10 4066.15 8
1963 11 4093.90 14
1963 12 4111.55 3
1964 1 4144.48 -5
1964 2 4139.27 -8
1964 3 4167.53 -27
1964 4 4181.04 -33
1964 5 4197.98 -28
1964 6 4208.11 -2
1964 7 4202.44 -5
1964 8 4212.79 -24
1964 9 4232.35 -37
1964 10 4240.24 -30
1964 11 4253.64 -19
1964 12 4307.12 -30
1965 1 4294.26 -10
1965 2 4289.78 -18
1965 3 4313.93 -10
1965 4 4334.76 -19
1965 5 4340.11 -6
1965 6 4288.39 -12
1965 7 4247.02 -20
1965 8 4246.31 -6
1965 9 4267.50 -16
1965 10 4270.53 -6
1965 11 4294.36 -7
1965 12 4300.27 -6
1966 1 4258.35 -17
1966 2 4261.50 -1
1966 3 4210.80 11
1966 4 4180.36 -12
1966 5 4207.06 -8
1966 6 4145.86 -2
1966 7 4107.75 11
1966 8 4112.27 -5
1966 9 3955.94 0
1966 10 4055.35 -15
1966 11 4090.82 0
1966 12 4052.58 -4
1967 1 3990.77 -7
1967 2 3959.54 -23
1967 3 4013.55 8
1967 4 4025.18 -2
1967 5 3973.51 11
1967 6 3960.11 -6
1967 7 3984.55 6
1967 8 3940.20 1
1967 9 3951.99 0
1967 10 3979.84 10
1967 11 3922.36 -2
1967 12 3932.64 -1
1968 1 3946.00 -22
1968 2 3924.65 -13
1968 3 3909.27 24
1968 4 3931.88 -4
1968 5 3894.57 -9
1968 6 3829.50 0
1968 7 3830.37 -7
1968 8 3852.85 -5
1968 9 3816.93 -14
1968 10 3760.87 13
1968 11 3652.11 -3
1968 12 3685.01 -13
1969 1 3801.43 -7
1969 2 3831.30 -8
1969 3 3797.71 -3
1969 4 3782.36 20
1969 5 3656.32 13
1969 6 3609.48 11
1969 7 3651.86 -4
1969 8 3730.47 0
1969 9 3781.23 9
1969 10 3802.75 14
1969 11 3797.70 16
1969 12 3806.99 30
1970 1 3790.29 10
1970 2 3824.50 23
1970 3 3781.42 9
1970 4 3765.28 4
1970 5 3764.99 -5
1970 6 3679.24 -2
1970 7 3684.18 -1
1970 8 3755.44 -12
1970 9 3832.25 14
1970 10 3861.94 3
1970 11 3785.99 4
1970 12 3895.40 -12
1971 1 3894.51 -2
1971 2 3975.17 -20
1971 3 3981.30 -21
1971 4 4002.61 -10
1971 5 4032.05 -11
1971 6 4124.57 -21
1971 7 4124.25 -11
1971 8 4151.62 -2
1971 9 4156.12 -2
1971 10 4200.11 -4
1971 11 4183.38 -7
1971 12 4192.07 -10
1972 1 4162.26 -26
1972 2 4157.37 -20
1972 3 4207.27 -2
1972 4 4237.42 0
1972 5 4214.64 -2
1972 6 4141.03 6
1972 7 4206.69 0
1972 8 4005.24 20
1972 9 4197.71 5
1972 10 4214.35 4
1972 11 4197.94 -2
1972 12 4198.31 18
1973 1 4200.48 26
1973 2 4192.97 28
1973 3 4173.18 25
1973 4 4074.77 24
1973 5 3996.97 22
1973 6 4118.80 16
1973 7 4150.47 10
1973 8 4180.41 1
1973 9 4234.63 6
1973 10 4239.53 13
1973 11 4254.58 4
1973 12 4252.62 -8
1974 1 4261.43 -14
1974 2 4283.37 -27
1974 3 4237.48 -5
1974 4 4206.89 -12
1974 5 4120.80 -4
1974 6 4077.44 -5
1974 7 4009.27 -1
1974 8 4083.21 10
1974 9 4053.53 -9
1974 10 4077.95 -7
1974 11 4058.43 -10
1974 12 4132.74 -11
1975 1 4156.72 1
1975 2 4205.96 1
1975 3 4209.66 11
1975 4 4239.43 -3
1975 5 4244.46 18
1975 6 4271.45 -3
1975 7 4261.56 -5
1975 8 4230.31 -21
1975 9 4243.40 -7
1975 10 4230.91 -10
1975 11 4217.94 -16
1975 12 4213.72 -21
1976 1 4215.76 -8
1976 2 4222.57 -11
1976 3 4235.66 -27
1976 4 4188.36 -16
1976 5 4217.91 -29
1976 6 4244.29 -14
1976 7 4253.81 -13
1976 8 4251.81 -19
1976 9 4283.29 -11
1976 10 4287.44 -30
1976 11 4285.34 -11
1976 12 4279.61 0
1977 1 4268.38 10
1977 2 4271.65 15
1977 3 4274.45 15
1977 4 4267.23 19
1977 5 4271.73 29
1977 6 4232.61 23
1977 7 4174.59 20
1977 8 4193.85 17
1977 9 4197.66 -5
1977 10 4245.14 -5
1977 11 4284.19 13
1977 12 4260.17 1
1978 1 4212.89 3
1978 2 4197.94 8
1978 3 4172.77 12
1978 4 4107.10 9
1978 5 3976.47 1
1978 6 4058.27 -8
1978 7 4068.43 4
1978 8 4182.65 -21
1978 9 4179.65 5
1978 10 4084.56 -3
1978 11 4136.50 7
1978 12 4127.96 0
1979 1 4071.91 6
1979 2 4034.43 -18
1979 3 3983.45 9
1979 4 3887.64 10
1979 5 3920.72 -6
1979 6 3814.48 4
1979 7 3806.17 -7
1979 8 3710.22 9
1979 9 3745.12 19
1979 10 3828.51 18
1979 11 3828.65 19
1979 12 3904.89 39
1980 1 3873.52 21
1980 2 3842.20 28
1980 3 3899.60 22
1980 4 3819.47 22
1980 5 3816.91 27
1980 6 3696.79 10
1980 7 3691.96 18
1980 8 3718.63 13
1980 9 3724.18 13
1980 10 3646.98 8
1980 11 3564.03 23
1980 12 3564.35 10
1981 1 3702.91 47
1981 2 3623.06 37
1981 3 3615.90 43
1981 4 3561.34 24
1981 5 3567.37 15
1981 6 3643.28 20
1981 7 3660.97 31
1981 8 3661.72 35
1981 9 3731.84 12
1981 10 3613.38 7
1981 11 3624.36 18
1981 12 3726.45 29
1982 1 3780.44 1
1982 2 3633.44 8
1982 3 3777.80 -11
1982 4 3818.70 2
1982 5 3860.17 15
1982 6 3650.11 1
1982 7 3462.75 14
1982 8 3456.23 -6
1982 9 3364.31 1
1982 10 3444.08 3
1982 11 3482.39 4
1982 12 3413.14 35
1983 1 3550.28 44
1983 2 3643.49 37
1983 3 3744.05 37
1983 4 3753.31 26
1983 5 3613.34 30
1983 6 3700.20 18
1983 7 3789.67 13
1983 8 3800.39 30
1983 9 3845.22 35
1983 10 3860.05 10
1983 11 3896.88 23
1983 12 3880.65 11
1984 1 3915.45 23
1984 2 3896.39 6
1984 3 3829.62 21
1984 4 3805.83 1
1984 5 3677.13 30
1984 6 3772.84 -5
1984 7 3813.16 14
1984 8 3864.46 13
1984 9 3890.82 18
1984 10 3897.26 4
1984 11 3870.70 -5
1984 12 3889.01 -15
1985 1 3919.16 15
1985 2 3985.15 -12
1985 3 4001.99 12
1985 4 3995.22 6
1985 5 4025.37 6
1985 6 4087.82 12
1985 7 4066.16 -3
1985 8 4074.57 13
1985 9 4139.23 8
1985 10 4139.43 5
1985 11 4173.63 -2
1985 12 4141.20 8
1986 1 4128.62 20
1986 2 4036.53 38
1986 3 4098.12 25
1986 4 4198.27 18
1986 5 4231.32 12
1986 6 4242.20 6
1986 7 4242.82 6
1986 8 4243.98 12
1986 9 4277.42 2
1986 10 4280.24 6
1986 11 4222.10 1
1986 12 4277.18 6
1987 1 4331.05 25
1987 2 4376.05 37
1987 3 4377.47 16
1987 4 4346.29 21
1987 5 4322.77 18
1987 6 4254.56 30
1987 7 4215.37 38
1987 8 4169.25 15
1987 9 4122.81 29
1987 10 4138.84 26
1987 11 4079.80 23
1987 12 4083.69 43
1988 1 3970.19 51
1988 2 3996.50 35
1988 3 4023.54 47
1988 4 3995.43 35
1988 5 4005.13 37
1988 6 3981.46 39
1988 7 3906.05 26
1988 8 3898.86 28
1988 9 3923.04 30
1988 10 3890.65 28
1988 11 3886.15 -2
1988 12 3797.81 18
1989 1 3730.75 3
1989 2 3717.19 29
1989 3 3500.24 26
1989 4 3527.30 15
1989 5 3446.38 3
1989 6 3478.39 7
1989 7 3594.33 29
1989 8 3535.46 28
1989 9 3468.11 32
1989 10 3344.18 26
1989 11 3291.02 8
1989 12 3349.09 27
1990 1 3432.22 32
1990 2 3475.92 29
1990 3 3424.11 67
1990 4 3317.50 48
1990 5 3274.85 37
1990 6 3283.41 31
1990 7 3406.35 48
1990 8 3376.92 27
1990 9 3450.49 17
1990 10 3539.64 40
1990 11 3607.94 41
1990 12 3621.76 36
1991 1 3718.84 35
1991 2 3724.88 45
1991 3 3450.59 29
1991 4 3482.55 44
1991 5 3495.97 30
1991 6 3041.25 49
1991 7 3062.36 49
1991 8 3292.86 38
1991 9 3481.99 39
1991 10 3581.44 21
1991 11 3569.79 19
1991 12 3628.45 24
1992 1 3638.62 39
1992 2 3599.76 35
1992 3 3683.77 35
1992 4 3803.25 15
1992 5 3775.53 19
1992 6 3875.79 16
1992 7 3939.31 0
1992 8 3939.18 2
1992 9 3918.25 -10
1992 10 3988.84 -4
1992 11 3966.21 -9
1992 12 4035.81 12
1993 1 4006.59 28
1993 2 4007.23 28
1993 3 3923.92 29
1993 4 4002.58 16
1993 5 4027.37 18
1993 6 4060.53 10
1993 7 4074.61 11
1993 8 4075.99 4
1993 9 4111.41 0
1993 10 4122.34 15
1993 11 4138.60 2
1993 12 4122.79 6
1994 1 4130.14 24
1994 2 4078.82 -5
1994 3 4057.61 21
1994 4 4047.64 27
1994 5 4075.95 17
1994 6 4085.59 35
1994 7 4117.21 21
1994 8 4139.78 17
1994 9 4172.98 30
1994 10 4178.80 37
1994 11 4187.10 33
1994 12 4168.26 25
1995 1 4191.42 43
1995 2 4193.50 71
1995 3 4180.19 44
1995 4 4198.68 39
1995 5 4207.64 9
1995 6 4193.25 35
1995 7 4196.36 50
1995 8 4209.10 37
1995 9 4234.72 23
1995 10 4240.03 45
1995 11 4227.22 37
1995 12 4246.41 25
1996 1 4248.61 26
1996 2 4266.61 48
1996 3 4275.96 33
1996 4 4269.80 25
1996 5 4251.70 19
1996 6 4250.28 18
1996 7 4253.89 38
1996 8 4256.34 43
1996 9 4263.74 26
1996 10 4243.80 17
1996 11 4231.44 36
1996 12 4241.68 32
1997 1 4271.91 27
1997 2 4292.26 29
1997 3 4277.32 47
1997 4 4273.58 34
1997 5 4269.10 32
1997 6 4281.23 50
1997 7 4268.06 26
1997 8 4289.91 36
1997 9 4277.87 40
1997 10 4261.14 49
1997 11 4254.82 56
1997 12 4263.88 53
1998 1 4270.21 52
1998 2 4286.83 79
1998 3 4291.04 56
1998 4 4159.54 56
1998 5 4086.88 61
1998 6 4115.78 68
1998 7 4141.90 71
1998 8 4086.37 62
1998 9 4147.18 42
1998 10 4212.09 40
1998 11 4174.30 43
1998 12 4132.76 51
1999 1 4055.86 40
1999 2 4039.48 60
1999 3 4057.65 27
1999 4 4083.37 27
1999 5 4050.16 21
1999 6 4105.98 36
1999 7 4133.36 30
1999 8 4031.11 28
1999 9 3955.70 26
1999 10 3899.84 31
1999 11 3870.19 32
1999 12 3839.82 33
2000 1 3855.57 17
2000 2 3821.37 51
2000 3 3747.95 46
2000 4 3752.01 53
2000 5 3656.52 29
2000 6 3582.66 36
2000 7 3484.05 33
2000 8 3561.49 38
2000 9 3616.99 32
2000 10 3724.64 20
2000 11 3614.99 26
2000 12 3650.25 21
2001 1 3713.23 38
2001 2 3801.75 41
2001 3 3869.46 54
2001 4 3621.99 39
2001 5 3733.98 52
2001 6 3778.61 47
2001 7 3792.88 51
2001 8 3713.02 46
2001 9 3713.17 49
2001 10 3674.99 44
2001 11 3761.30 67
2001 12 3787.63 51
2002 1 3669.56 71
2002 2 3789.31 70
2002 3 3744.84 83
2002 4 3733.31 59
2002 5 3738.74 57
2002 6 3770.91 47
2002 7 3701.84 57
2002 8 3609.73 45
2002 9 3682.54 49
2002 10 3734.88 50
2002 11 3659.03 52
2002 12 3687.98 37
2003 1 3714.09 65
2003 2 3727.40 51
2003 3 3736.01 51
2003 4 3685.40 49
2003 5 3664.32 51
2003 6 3580.34 39
2003 7 3664.67 48
2003 8 3706.27 63
2003 9 3756.18 60
2003 10 3685.29 66
2003 11 3441.54 50
2003 12 3725.29 69
2004 1 3707.65 53
2004 2 3835.72 67
2004 3 3892.60 59
2004 4 3944.59 52
2004 5 3988.72 37
2004 6 3962.95 33
2004 7 3914.83 22
2004 8 3937.00 44
2004 9 3981.46 47
2004 10 4090.94 59
2004 11 3976.91 64
2004 12 4020.03 51
2005 1 3813.56 69
2005 2 3963.34 56
2005 3 3992.75 71
2005 4 4019.51 65
2005 5 3919.22 55
2005 6 4010.44 60
2005 7 3972.66 55
2005 8 3948.57 57
2005 9 3842.22 69
2005 10 4043.83 72
2005 11 4094.07 64
2005 12 4096.35 59
2006 1 4112.43 44
2006 2 4177.21 58
2006 3 4215.11 56
2006 4 4221.39 47
2006 5 4220.93 43
2006 6 4236.05 53
2006 7 4186.80 44
Bawana
> <worthless minutiae flushed>
> Members of this newsgroup working for Carbon fuel industry
> keep looking for some another cause for global warming other
> than waste CO2 from their master's products.
The IPCC, which leads the charge on global climate change,
works under the auspices of the United Nations.
They are charged to provide "a balanced reporting of existing
viewpoints," yet their sources are restricted solely to those who
support the theory of human agency in global climate change.
Their methodology is inherently unscientific, because they rule out of
consideration any research with results which don't conform to their
expected results.
"Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
(CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.
> <worthless minutiae flushed>
kdt...@yahoo.com
> ----------------------------http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9485/1066/
>
> Scientist reports that cosmic rays cause much of Earth?s global warming
> By William Atkins
> Tuesday, 13 February 2007
>
> Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has concluded that the Earth
> is experiencing less cloud cover because cosmic rays are not entering
> the atmosphere as frequently as normal. Consequently, Svensmark
> are largely responsible for global warming.
>
> Cosmic rays are a type of radiation that consist of highly
> energetic particles; specifically, they are composed mostly
> of protons, along with moderate amounts of alpha particles
> (helium nuclei), electrons, gamma rays (high-energy electromagnetic
> radiation), neutrinos (neutral elementary particles), and even
> smaller amounts of heavier atomic nuclei. While traveling through
> outer space some of them contact the Earth?s atmosphere. Cosmic
> rays can originate from many different sources, but the ones that
> come from the Sun affects the Earth the most. They have energies
> of about 100 exa-electron volts (EeV, where exa- stands for
> quintillion?that is, 1 followed by 18 zeros).
>
> Because cosmic rays are not very dense they are able to travel
> easily through the near-emptiness of space. However, once they
> reach the dense atmosphere of the Earth, the particles that make
> up cosmic rays quickly interact with gaseous particles that make
> up the atmosphere. The interaction creates ions (electrically
> charged particles), which attracts water molecules. Over time,
> water molecules group together and, eventually, condense into
> droplets. Clouds are formed from this condensation process.
>
> ...
Whether this is plausable or not, there are many factors in earth's
thermodynamics and many other possible causes for temperature increase
other than the invented action of 'radiative forcing' of CO2.
Before the end of the warming trends of the interglacial periods,
there is normally a spike of 2C above the mean. We have not reached
that spike and we are clearly near the end of an interglacial period.
To look at how much ice has melted in the last 18000 yrs, and how
little is left makes it ridiculous to say that we are going to melt
the last little bit.
In the ice core data, it is clear that temperature and CO2 fluctuate.
It does show the warming and the CO2 coincide. But the warming
precedes the higher CO2. The extra CO2 is released from the warming.
The calculations of 'radiative forcing' that are used to calculate the
immediate effects of human introduced CO2 cannot be applied.
CO2 has no such property of retaining heat in the atmospherere. This
property cannot be demonstrated directly in the laboratory. The entire
theory of grenhouse gases is pure speculative theoretical surmise,
based on invented physical principles which makes this theory invalid
from beginning to end.
So what if there is CO2 on Venus and Venus is hot. It is more likely
that the high temperature of venus is caused by the effects of
gravitational forces. This occurs with Jupiters closest moon Io, which
is much hotter than it should be.
The effect of CO2 causing higher temperatures cannot be documented
anywhere in valid experiment.
Deatherage
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
Roger Coppock
> On Feb 12, 4:10 pm, "Roger Co2ppuck" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > <worthless minutiae flushed>
> > Members of this newsgroup working for Carbon fuel industry
> > keep looking for some another cause for global warming other
> > than waste CO2 from their master's products.
>
> The IPCC, which leads the charge on global climate change,
> works under the auspices of the United Nations.
>
You are off topic.
Nothing in the previous posts mentioned the IPCC.
When you have lost the debate change the topic.
Roger Coppock
> On Feb 12, 2:29 pm, Skeptic <skept...@autonet.com> wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9485/1066/
>
> > Scientist reports that cosmic rays cause much of Earth?s global warming
> > By William Atkins
> > Tuesday, 13 February 2007
>
> > Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has concluded that the Earth
> > is experiencing less cloud cover because cosmic rays are not entering
> > the atmosphere as frequently as normal. Consequently, Svensmark
> > says that cosmic rays, not human-made carbon dioxide emissions,
> > are largely responsible for global warming.
>
>
> Whether this is plausable or not, there are many factors in earth's
> thermodynamics and many other possible causes for temperature increase
> other than the invented action of 'radiative forcing' of CO2.
You are off topic.
We are discussing Cosmic Rays not CO2.
When you have lost the debate, change the topic.
Roger Coppock
to do with global warming. In science, the data
The Cosmic Ray Theory of Global Warming Fails A Basic Test!
Members of this newsgroup working for Carbon fuel industry
keep looking for some another cause for global warming other
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The NASA GISS monthly mean land and sea surface
temperature data are here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
kdt...@yahoo.com
> When you have lost the debate, change the topic.- Hide quoted text -
>
This may be a reason that influences clouds. At least this guys got
the right idea and understands that cooling or warming depends on the
energy reaching the surface. You instead have your head up your ass
believing that radiative forcing causes a general increase down
through the troposphere.
This is ignorant since pressure is much greater at the surface. If you
take the same quantity of air and decompress it, it's temperature goes
down. Recompress it it's temperature goes up. This is without adding
or subtracting actual heat or Joules. This means that the heat in the
lower pressure air at temperatures -65C at the top of the troposphere,
is in no way going to be recondensed into affecting temperatures at
the surface in this entirely made up fantasy dynamic of heating and
global warming which you accept as yours from the other idiots who
made it up. The heat of the earth is constantly transfering through
the gases to outer space. Otherwise there could not be equilibrium,
since the surface does recieve considerable input radiation. A gas
expands when it absorbs energy and this causes convection.
The atmosphere does not radiate 324Wm-2 where the sun radiates 170Wm-2
like is indicated in your religion. Also at the equator, 370Wm-2 is
blocked by the atmosphere from reaching the surface. This means your
initial determination of 235Wm-2, from the 342Wm-2 from dividing the
solar constant by 4 and subtracting .31 albedo, is some of the
dumbnest stuff ever invented and believed by idiot rejects from the
human race.
This is the main determination of surface temperature and ocean
temperature. The ocean is from 86F to 28F. Exactly half way in between
is average temperature of the earth 57F. The temperature of the ocean
due to it's recieved radiation from the sun determines the
temperatures of the earth. NOT the atmosphere, and NOT grenhouse
gases. The earth's mean radiative temperature, which is the
temperature that it radiates most of it's energy is 81F or 459Wm-2.
You have no science and not even the basics of thermodynamics,
chemistry or basic physics.
CO2 has three main absorption bands. 2.7, 4.2 and 15um. The first two,
the sun radiates in these very heavily and CO2 would prevent these
frequencies from reaching the surface, if your idea's of absorption
were right. The other at 15um, is much lower than the 10um band in
which the earth radiates. There is no laboratory data at all to show
this band can cause normal temperatures around earth temperatures to
be increased at any concentrations, even 100% CO2.
So get on with your fantasy semantics about your proper topic, AGW,
dildo.
In the face of valid science,,,,
he keeps going,,,,and going,,,,,and going,,,
Deatherage
Bawana
> On Feb 12, 1:25 pm, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 4:10 pm, "Roger Co2ppuck" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > > <worthless minutiae flushed>
> > > Members of this newsgroup working for Carbon fuel industry
> > > keep looking for some another cause for global warming other
> > > than waste CO2 from their master's products.
>
> > The IPCC, which leads the charge on global climate change,
> > works under the auspices of the United Nations.
>
> You are off topic.
Who died and made you moderator, Co2puke?
> Nothing in the previous posts mentioned the IPCC.
You brought up the 'Carbon fuel industry'.
I brought up the IPCC, the 'Carbon fraud industry'.
Trying to distance yourself from the IPCC, Co2puck?
> When you have lost the debate change the topic.
Your worthless minutiae is comical, Co2puke.
The IPCC's methodology is inherently unscientific,
because they rule out of consideration any research with results which
don't conform to their expected results.
A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field. These
theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any dissenter is
accused of being ignorant, which makes for a convenient, easy
dismissal of any anomalous evidence.
Since any such evidence is thus automatically ineligible for
publication in the proper journals, this lack of documentation is then
in turn taken by researchers in the field as proof that the evidence
must be of low scientific value.
Bawana
You're a bit of a retard, eh Co2puke?
danny
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>
>
>>Data say that cosmic rays have very little (5%)
>>to do with global warming. In science, the data
>>rules.
>
>
> Examining the data with old thinking indicates this. Yes.
>
> The scientist postulating that cosmic rays cause global warming
> isn't a crackpot or employee of Exxon.
>
> His views are presented at the web site of the Danish Space
> Center http://www.spacecenter.dk/ This is a government and
> educational site dealing with space and astrophysics. They
> have featured the cosmic ray findings at the link below.
>
> http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/the-sky-experiment-1
>
> This has sparked more research into cosmic rays. There are scientists
> in Switzerland who are beginning experiments with particle accelerators
> to either validate or disprove the theory.
>
> It's a good thing there still are some open and objective minds
> looking at global warming. Perhaps the results of these new
> experiments will fill in some of the 'unknown' quantities in current
> climate models....
An open mind is a good thing... however accepting the weight of evidence
is also a good thing. It seems to me that your reasoning is "I'll accept
any possibility but anthropogenic co2..." Unfortunately AGW is where
most of the evidence points.
Bawana
> <rss>
danny
> On Feb 12, 11:18 pm, danny <retarded sockpuppet> wrote:
>
>
>><rss>
>
>
dumber'n dog shit
Exxon Creams on Death-Rag
> down. Recompress it it's temperature goes up. This is without adding
> is in no way going to be recondensed into affecting temperatures at
> made it up. The heat of the earth is constantly transfering through
> since the surface does recieve considerable input radiation. A gas
> dumbnest stuff ever invented and believed by idiot rejects from the
> due to it's recieved radiation from the sun determines the
> temperatures of the earth. NOT the atmosphere, and NOT grenhouse
> dildo.
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: transfering recieve dumbnest recieved grenhouse dildo.