Henrik Svensmark was right, and CLOUD proved it beyond question. The CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays seed cloud formation in our atmosphere and do, in-fact, Influence Global Temperature. The findings of CLOUD also stick a fork in the models used by Warmest to predict future doom and gloom. They do not/Cannot predict the effect of Clouds, or in may Models include their effects at all. The models fail, and so they do. Not model has been accurately predictive. They all fail the Reality test.
@Ganyekateiwaz ; No. CLOUD confirmed the fact that Svensmark was wrong, but other studies had already disproved Svensmark's claims. It should also be pointed out, once again, that Svensmark made his baseless assertions after the link between cosmic rays and could formation had been disproved.
You mustn't confuse correlation with coincidence. For instance, you can similarly link the number of pirates in the Caribbean to the Earths rising temperatures over the last hundred years. As the number of pirates drop, Earth's temperature has proportionally risen.
Svensmark's conclusion: it was magic! He cannot explain the current global temperature anomaly happened, yet all of the world's experts on the subject for over 100 years have done so. Svensmark claims they are all wrong. Kook.
Meanwhile, Svensmark claimed he disproved 180 years of scientific discovery in physics, and none of the physicists on the planet agree with him, for good reason: his assertions are refuted by observation.
"Record" regional hot spells, as reported in man's brevity on earth, are only man's feeble attempt at determining "Cause and Effect"."Record" heat associated with drought are supposedly the "Reason" for the fires that swept NM in 2011. Actually the 60 yr discontinuation of logging and grazing in the forests caused a "Record" fuel load that wasted over 150,000 acres in one fire. CO2 emissions from NM fires in two months, exceeded all US motor vehicle emissions for one year. C and E? 'Cap/Trade'?
One of the most influential concepts I've heard about for a long time.
I wish scientists would stop "believing" the religion of global warming instead of using the scientific method to challenge and improve currently accepted theories.
Its great to here a scientist doing some real experiments on this issue. Whats also interesting that it is not C02 but water in the atmosphere that has the most effect on temperature through the capture of radiated heat and the radiating of a part of that energy back to the surface. When you think about his science experiment at school the lack of cloud formation has a two fold effect 1 is the reduction of cloud cover 2 is the water left in the atmosphere to create the so called greenhouse
@27kdon Because of the solar cycles. These explain the fastest changes of climate.
For the changes that were longer : some millions of years before, these are explained by our solar system going through the spins of our galaxy as it does the revolution in something like 220 Million years if i'm right.
Each time it is in a spin, it receives more cosmic rays and thus more clouds.
Gamma radiation from Crab Nebula is increasing (per NASA), adding to formation of clouds (Svensmark). Coincide with cooling Europe and the US (Maine -49F) eastern seaboard snowfall (increased solar reflectivity?). Research the Priora Oscillation to get a picture of what occured about 5k years ago ...way before BP BTW..
@Blogengezer Or, correlate it with a record hot summer in Texas that is so dry that it is resulting in record fires. If you spot a trend after the fact, you really aren't predicting anything.
Svensmark is right on. There is a long historical correlation between changes in solar activity and global temperatures. There is no connection in geological history between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. There were at least three ice ages with more CO2 than today,one had ten times more, one five times more. The hoaxers want any new discoveries stopped. We live in a laboratory,expect colder temperatures next few decades as solar activity remains low/ ocean surface temps cool
Svensmark is right on. There is a long historical correlation between changes in solar activity and global temperatures. There is no connection in geological history between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. There were at least three ice ages with more CO2 than today,one had ten times more, one five times more. The hoaxers want any new discoveries stopped. We live in a laboratory,expect colder temperatures next few decades as solar activity remains low/ ocean surface temps cools
The theory that CO2 causes climate change began to fall apart when it was shown that in the ice core data temperature changes preceded, not followed changes in CO2 levels. It was laid to rest when Lindzen (MIT) and others showed that the positive feedback effects necessary for CO2 to cause harmful warming do not exist.
Results from experiments on Svensmark's theory should come out yet this year. Meanwhile, what proof do you have that CO2 causes harmful warming?
@groweg So in other words you don't follow the science at all. It was Hanson, AGW guy, who predicted CO2 would follow temp. During the natural changes recorded in ice cores orbital changes begin the cycle but CO2 gain or loss amplified the effect. The large scale swings are evidence of CO2s power.
Lintzen's last paper was so bad he admitted it had major flaws and withdrew it. If Lintzen was right the ice cores couldn't show such big shifts. That's why his work isn't convincing anyone.
Now if only he could produce some science that could actually convince someone who knows what they are talking about. Of course those people know water vapour is a feedback not a forcing. His theory doesn't hold water.
@johnsenkenn Well based on a century and a half of established physics. It fits with by multiple lines of observable evidence. We can directly measure the human finger print. So yeah. I think it does.
But It's not mine actually. It is the one held by thousands of scientists and Svensmark has failed to convince them. Quite simply put the correlations he based his ideas on broke down in 1991. His ideas are not totally invalidated but they simply don't make the case for what he claims.
It's not easy to convince you when your reasoning is political, it's a false flag, and you do not admit that, because then a false flag does does not make much sense.
@johnsenkenn In what way is the science political? Are the birds who are migrating earlier political? The melting glaciers? Rising oceans?
Exactly when did the great conspiracy, where all climate scientists were chosen as they entered university based on the ability to manipulate their minds, begin. Who was the guy who planned ahead and began creating the millions of data points in the instrumental record, not to mention creating all those ice cores.
@citizenschallengeYT -- CO2 is also part of atmosphere. And, even the IPCC Fourth Assessment shows that water vapor is a more significant GHG than CO2.
The clouds are imbedded within the atmosphere, they are part of the picture but to try and claim they are the major driver shows a total lack of appreciation for the Atmosphere.
That's the horrible thing about these contrarians - they believe they can take a 5% portion of the system and ignore all other factors.
Henrik Svensmark will stand out as the Gallileo of our time that has been subdued by the "priests" in the CO2 lobby. It may take time before the public realize this, but it will come forth one day. As he shows in his graphs, there is a strong connection here. That's more than can be said about CO2.
AGW-denial is based on PR campaingns and everyone who wants ! can find it out and understand the background.
All old lies. Repeated again and again. Has NOTHING to do with science today...
climate nasa gov / evidence
there IS NO respected scientific institute on this planet supporting "climate sceptics" ideas - because its not science - its desinformation to confuse the public.
~20% of the "sceptics" (lol) in the internet spaming comments to confuse public, beggin for followers
@aerobique In fact the IPCC's own reports negate the effect of CO2 on our climate, and prove that Cosmic rays and Solar cycles control it. SEE Henrick Svensmark ...... please educate yourselves to this published science. There are many papers like it that negate CO2's effect on our climate, but this political movement seems to ignore all of that and just keep trying to move on to TAXING CO2, the primary objective. HMMMMM wonder why they want it?
"Solar irradiance does vary but that is irrelevant. WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN !
Your comments are indicative of the level of stupidity of alarmists.
Here's the big one for you ... what is the evidence that man's CO2 has caused warming ? Funny how the IPCC can't find any ... any has to rely on models ... which we all know can give any result you want. "
AGW-denial is based on PR campaingns and every idiot who wants! can find it out and understand the background.
All old lies. Repeated again and again.
For example the sun story^ is...its is a job for satellites.
According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been NO increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature HAS BEEN RISING fastest, the sun has NOT changed.
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been NO increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
the "arlamists" the "believer" and the parroting "sheeps" are you deniers, who somehow pathological denying the mountains of scientific evidence AND consensus... very useful IDIOTS for the worldwide petro-mafia, the free-market and the sick! anti-environment movements... They are the ones who originated this stupid cult of distraction, fear, lies and ignorance. Better re-think your narrow point of view.
Solar irradiance does vary but that is irrelevant. WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN !
It is the variation in magnetic activity and its effect on cosmic rays that is a major cause of climate change. There is not a single scrap of evidence for the theory that man's CO2 has effected climate.
A comment indicative of the level of stupidity of alarmists.
Here's the big one for you ... what is the evidence that man's CO2 has caused warming ? Funny how the IPCC can't find any ... any has to rely on models ... which we all know can give any result you want.
@aerobique Why do you want to put all your faith in a political movement like agw? There is no science to support it, only political/monetary gain for very few. Don't be a sheep, watch the video again, listen to John Christie. There are so many phd's that know the truth. The UN is pulling the greatest scam in history, and you are supporting it. Lets focus on real problems, ie. The oil spills in the oceans, dumping garbage in them too, when all of that garbage could be used to create energy.
@sydneydoc Wrong again, though this at least is not a lie, just not the whole truth. Arctic sea ice extent has increased in recent years, but overall extend and volume are decrease by several percent percent. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, but a great deal if this is due to increase in speed of the ice streams from the land ice sheet. Overall mass has been decreasing.
Sea ice always melts in summer, but not all of it. We may someday sea an ice free arctic summer though.
@sydneydoc Quotation marks are a handy tool Sydney, as is google. So far you have claimed, laughably that all feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere are negative and that positive feedback mechanisms are "by definition" unstable. You have also claimed that the number of "anti-AGW" papers outnumber "pro-AGW" papers by an order of magnitude. When you make statements so easily shown to be false, it does lend credit to the idea that you're just making it up.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
@conservativesunited 1) Irrelevant. Take out the CO2 from the atmosphere and our planet would be tens of degrees cooler. 2) Feedback loops. See #1, 3) Aerosols now banned are believed to have had a cooling effect in the middle of the century. The last decade has not been a cooling period 4) All organizations are political. The IPCC gather information from more climate scientists than any other. 5) Simply not true.
@sydneydoc 1) Have you even looked? There is decades of evidence gathered on C02's effect on the atmosphere. Google Tyndal for starters. 2) Do you even know what that sentence means? What do you mean by stable. If all feedback was negative this would be a snowball planet. 3) Are you completely unaware of the banning of CFCs? 4) Unsupported charge and ignores qualification of the hundreds of contributing scientists. 5) Total opposite of truth. Solar activity doesn't even correlate.
Exactly what is the evidence that man's CO2 has caused global warming ? The IPCC has none in its report. Perhaps you have some ? The world is waiting !
You alarmists obviously have no understanding what feedback means. Give one demonstrated example of a positive feedback system in nature. By definition, positive feedbacks are unstable.
@sydneydoc I guess hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers over the decades aren't good enough for you. Basic search on google scholar brought up plenty. Models predicted the increases we have seen so far. We know that carbon dioxide gas has been increasing due to human influence. We know it is a greenhouse gas. No other model has even come close to explaining recent temperature rise.
Don't know where you got your definition of positive feedback, but it's wrong.
@sydneydoc Please stop making stuff up. The vast majority of peer reviewed articles are in support of AGW. The handful of dissenters are often from different fields and their claims have been thoroughly addressed. Does the name Naomi Oreskes ring a bell? Probably not, as your comments show you have not researched the matter very thoroughly.
@sydneydoc 450 papers? Care to site your source on this one. That's the sort of info that requires a great deal of research. Mind mentioning who did this and where they are published?
@sydneydoc You again ignored the question. What would you consider evidence? We have hundreds of peer reviewed papers that explain the physics of it and predict successfully the expected effects.
Models are evidence if they successfully model what is going on and/or predict what has occurred. We have that in spades. No other competing models even come close.
Anything other than models. Garbage in = garbage out.
You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I can build a model to give any result I want. Models are useless. Climate models use the same math that weather models do ... except that there are far more unknowns, such as ocean and cloud behaviour. If models can't predict whether it will rain next week, they have no chance predicting 100 years out.
IPCC models failed to forecast the past 15 yrs no warming
How old is this video? At 3:23 he talks about his work with Eigel Friis-Christensen on solar forcing and the correlation with temps. Problem is, since those original studies came out in the 1990's the data has diverged and the idea discarded.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, to their credit, were doing good science but the correlation didn't hold.
People keep pulling up old information like this not realizing it's old science. Same with Prof Lindzen and the iris effect.
4.31 and 7.28 notice how the graphs conveniently stop around 1985 and'90
that's because after that the relationship breaks down. nobody argues that solar (duh) and cosmic rays won't have an influence. but that influence is now being overridden by co2
As with all the GW nonsense, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. In fact aerosols continued to increase after 1970 as 3rd world fossil fuel burning overtook 1st world.
@sydneydoc... Whew! You have NOT done your research.
Think about it for one second. What IS the IPCC? The International Panel on Climate Change. Their JOB is to consolidate all the data regarding climate change and make reports. All the scientific data representing climate change is there.
You obviously don't understand the 800 year lag. That has never been at issue. It's always been understood how that works.
Read the ClimateGate emails and the HARRY-README. Spend a few days reading the daily articles being posted on WattsUpWithThat rather than alarmist bs. Read BBC's interview of Jones ... he's largely responsible for the IPCC garbage.
Read about your fav railway engineer who heads the IPCC and how he's been scamming.
Saying that cosmic rays produce clouds in a trstlab is one thing. Saying it happens in the atmosphere is another. Than: some clouds cool the Earth (Stratus), some trap the warmth much like CO2 (Cirrus and other clouds). Svensmark cannot say which clouds are affected. He cannot say what it translates to in praxis. So saying: more clouds means cooling is in itself incorrect. He has got a lot to do. Meanwhile CO2 effects are undisputed, wel understood. For more than a century now...
Actually, the videos clearly state that it is the low clouds that are mainly affected and that this cloud formation is thus cooling. Very good program. I can recommend anyone to watch all of the 5 vids.
All Green Gaia Marxist what is your solution collect billions every year so you can cry it is man made Globull warming 30 years later the greatest morons of all time the solution is to make Al Gore a Billionaire and a Globull tax. What a pack of morons. I can't believe anyone is gullible to listen to all these lies.
Well what do you know, the Earth really isn't the center of the universe and it's climate is affected by other forces. We all know what happened to the first men who suggested that Sun did not revolve around the earth.
YOu Liars and blasphemers of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of G-D. He was sent By the Father to give His life for all of us. We must repent, to turn from our sins. NO Drunkard or sexual immoral shall enter into heaven, That means gay marriage or gay life, drunkards , drug abusers and the unbelievers. I say REPENT or accept the JUDGEMent of the Unrepentant.
Look not for the approval of men but of THE LORd Messiah Yeshua NOW IS THE TIME! Do it while the blood runs warm in your veins.
The small segment about the cloud chamber is rather profound, I think. In essence the cloud chamber was so named because the effect it produced inside resembled natural clouds and not named because of an understanding that natural clouds were formed in a nearly identical fashion. There it was sitting waiting for the correlation to be discovered for years and years. It makes you wonder just how many more staring-you-in-the-face scientific ideas are yet to be discovered.
I just read an article on the "Welt" about Henrik Svensmark .... he has a VERY powerful Message to say. It´s an outright scandal that nobody wanted to publish his works. Climategate has revealed one thing .... the press has lacked it´s role in this matter.
Give the man the Nobel Price of Physics. By the way In CERN they are preparing an experiment which is going to PROVE his theory .... !!! 3,5 Billion Euros well spend as it seems. ;-)
It seems clear that there is an indisputable correlation between solar magnetism and temperature. Equally, it is indisputable that there is a clear correlation between solar magnetism and cloud formation. Question is - what impact does cloud formation have?
I personally think this theory merits being examined thoroughly.
At the same time, I believe CO2 reducing measures and other envoronmentally friendly activities should be increased.
It's based off a fake scientific paper, in a fake scientific journal with the word "Surgeons" in it's title, with two of the authors being father and son.
And the petition has zero verification process as to the credentials behind the names signed.
It's just a big list of names.
AND as for John Coleman, that guy has never written a peer reviewed physical science paper in his life.
So wrong, NASA them self say there is a belt of high energy just outside our solar system... Yea, you can google it, instead of talking shit...That is the second time this Fall that nasa has published articles on things they Dont Know what is Just Outside Our planet Pluto, coming towards us...
The reason you say Coleman is a bad guy and not Al Gore who swindle people for hundreads of millions of dollars, is that you are an fucking ignorant asshole, plain and simple...Go kill your self as Gore wants, since you are such a cocksucking good friend of his..
Why dont you google it then,things are far from what you are lead to believe by the Corrupt MainStreamMedia..
NASA have discovered twice this fall 'things' they dont know what are just outside out our system, that is spooky. Heard about the Photon belt ? Massive field of high energy photons coming into our system and I think that is why all the planets are changing. And there is supposedly an brownDwarf coming too, can be observer on Skyprogs if you follow the orbit of pluto.
The Heliosphere and the Magnetosphere(Magnetic Fields) are protecting us against this Cosmic Ray bombardments, but now, the shields are going down,both the Magneto and Helios, that increases the ammount of rays coming into the solarsystem thru the Heliosphere and also more xrays from the Sun thru the Magnetosphere, this heats up the planets.
I have seen the theory(-ies) are due to be tested at CERN in Switzerland.
I - and nobody else for that matter - knows the "truth" in this. I just think such evident correlations must be thought through. If the data is correct they must have some bearing.
On the other hand, and as I said in my comment, this should by no means rule out ongoing environmental measures to make this world cleaner.
Isn't this question a little more important than to downgrade it to; if the outcome doesn't match the theory, then change the outcome.....even if it's empirical data! this data is terrifying for all "experts" out there, earning big money but not telling the whole truth! We demand the true science to divert the mysticism in this matter! What are YOU waiting for! Get to it Right Now!!
The problem with the alarmist point of view is all they want to deal with are the putative effects of co2 and shove a carbon tax/trading system down our throats. There is no comprehensive attempt to understand or address other aspects of climate change that may be easier and cheaper and more effective/less damaging economically to mitigate. Instead all we hear is advocacy for a regressive tax or complex trading system. The "solution" sounds like credit default swaps and derivatives trading
You say Svensmark's work has "serious problems" and that's why he couldn't get it published. Didn't you listen to Eugene Parker (University of Chicago prof., discoverer of the solar wind, winner of the James Clerk Maxwell Prize) laud Svensmark's work and explain why he initially had a hard time getting it published? Now it is being tested at CERN in a major experiment. If it works he should win a Nobel Prize. Ideas of CO2 as the driver of climate will then be over.
IT isn't too hard to understand Henrik's theory. What warms our Solar System? The sun. In fact, if not for our sun, the Earth would not be inhabitable. Sooo..
Is it a huge leap to think that natural variations in the sun's output might have some significant impact on our little planet?
And what about the far more dramatic climate swings that happened long before mankind could make any significant contribution to CO2? Dinosaur gas? Seriously? Hello -
Well it doesn't really matter what's "easy to comprehend"
The issue is what the evidence actually shows. And Svensmark has no evidence.
As for CO2, if it were happening, what you'd expect is that for the specific spectrum of longwave radiation that CO2 blocks. You'd expect less going out into space, and more coming back down.
And that's exactly the what the empirical evidence from satellites over the past 4 decades shows.
@marktimmer2212 "Busted", eh? Would you care to be specific? Because I doubt you can ;D greyfalcon. net/ emails greyfalcon. net/ emails2 greyfalcon. net/ emails3 Also, for your "Club of Rome" style conspiracy theories, it's not like we're short on energy resources. greyfalcon. net/ solarenergy.png greyfalcon. net/ geoenergy.png greyfalcon. net/ solarbaseload greyfalcon. net/ egs
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Funny. He said no scientific journal would publish his work. It is likely that there were serious problems with it.
I'll stick with the conclusions of our historically reliable institurions like NAS, AAAS, EPA, NOAA, SOCC, AGU, and many others. They all say HUMANS are warming the plant by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land. This is old news. It goes back to The Charney Report in 1979.
well i clearly havnt been listin' to want Henrik Svensmark want to say.. he says that Humans are HELPING warming up the planet but not the main reason, the main reason is the clouds becouse they are the reason to the greenhouse effect..
Clearly you are missing the point. Even Svensmark admits that humans are warming the planet. So what's the problem? Even if, contrary to what our reliable institutions have said, that the majority of influence is something else do we not have the responsibility to those that come after us not to unnecessarily degrade their habitat? A bit long-winded but a reasonable argument.
great video. global warming is a bunch of bull shit. we're not warming anymore, we're cooling. and notice we dont hear about global warming as much in the media...its because we're cooling
interesting video and very informative
msjessypp 3 weeks ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
jayejayeee 3 weeks ago
really informative and interesting
jessyjessy4 3 weeks ago
This is a great video
shoppittsburghnow 1 month ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
rodswebdesign 1 month ago
you have some great stuff here
TheSpikeystuff 1 month ago
Very enjoyable thank you
osclarkos 1 month ago
you have some great stuff here
thejameskan 1 month ago
Henrik Svensmark was right, and CLOUD proved it beyond question. The CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays seed cloud formation in our atmosphere and do, in-fact, Influence Global Temperature. The findings of CLOUD also stick a fork in the models used by Warmest to predict future doom and gloom. They do not/Cannot predict the effect of Clouds, or in may Models include their effects at all. The models fail, and so they do. Not model has been accurately predictive. They all fail the Reality test.
Bravo21 1 month ago
Looks like the CLOUD experiements at C.E.R.N are providing proper non-model-based hard scientific data in support of Henrik's theory. Interesting.
Ganyekateiwaz 2 months ago
@Ganyekateiwaz ; No. CLOUD confirmed the fact that Svensmark was wrong, but other studies had already disproved Svensmark's claims. It should also be pointed out, once again, that Svensmark made his baseless assertions after the link between cosmic rays and could formation had been disproved.
Desertphile 1 month ago
You mustn't confuse correlation with coincidence. For instance, you can similarly link the number of pirates in the Caribbean to the Earths rising temperatures over the last hundred years. As the number of pirates drop, Earth's temperature has proportionally risen.
Ender1337otron 3 months ago
Svensmark's conclusion: it was magic! He cannot explain the current global temperature anomaly happened, yet all of the world's experts on the subject for over 100 years have done so. Svensmark claims they are all wrong. Kook.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile
Argument from authority dude, doesn't mean he is wrong. Science is not done by consensus
MrDaveyboy103 1 month ago
@MrDaveyboy103 ; Science is done by consensus, idiot.
Meanwhile, Svensmark claimed he disproved 180 years of scientific discovery in physics, and none of the physicists on the planet agree with him, for good reason: his assertions are refuted by observation.
Desertphile 1 month ago
"Record" regional hot spells, as reported in man's brevity on earth, are only man's feeble attempt at determining "Cause and Effect"."Record" heat associated with drought are supposedly the "Reason" for the fires that swept NM in 2011. Actually the 60 yr discontinuation of logging and grazing in the forests caused a "Record" fuel load that wasted over 150,000 acres in one fire. CO2 emissions from NM fires in two months, exceeded all US motor vehicle emissions for one year. C and E? 'Cap/Trade'?
Blogengezer 5 months ago
One of the most influential concepts I've heard about for a long time.
I wish scientists would stop "believing" the religion of global warming instead of using the scientific method to challenge and improve currently accepted theories.
axeluk 6 months ago
Its great to here a scientist doing some real experiments on this issue. Whats also interesting that it is not C02 but water in the atmosphere that has the most effect on temperature through the capture of radiated heat and the radiating of a part of that energy back to the surface. When you think about his science experiment at school the lack of cloud formation has a two fold effect 1 is the reduction of cloud cover 2 is the water left in the atmosphere to create the so called greenhouse
ChickertyChina 11 months ago
what i dont understand is why global warming and climate change is repetitive..
27kdon 1 year ago
@27kdon Because of the solar cycles. These explain the fastest changes of climate.
For the changes that were longer : some millions of years before, these are explained by our solar system going through the spins of our galaxy as it does the revolution in something like 220 Million years if i'm right.
Each time it is in a spin, it receives more cosmic rays and thus more clouds.
TerminatorFRA 10 months ago
Gamma radiation from Crab Nebula is increasing (per NASA), adding to formation of clouds (Svensmark). Coincide with cooling Europe and the US (Maine -49F) eastern seaboard snowfall (increased solar reflectivity?). Research the Priora Oscillation to get a picture of what occured about 5k years ago ...way before BP BTW..
Blogengezer 1 year ago
@Blogengezer Or, correlate it with a record hot summer in Texas that is so dry that it is resulting in record fires. If you spot a trend after the fact, you really aren't predicting anything.
shishkabobby 5 months ago
Cloud theory > man made C02 climate change!
DonBonjourno 1 year ago
Svensmark is right on. There is a long historical correlation between changes in solar activity and global temperatures. There is no connection in geological history between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. There were at least three ice ages with more CO2 than today,one had ten times more, one five times more. The hoaxers want any new discoveries stopped. We live in a laboratory,expect colder temperatures next few decades as solar activity remains low/ ocean surface temps cool
gpp111 1 year ago
Svensmark is right on. There is a long historical correlation between changes in solar activity and global temperatures. There is no connection in geological history between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. There were at least three ice ages with more CO2 than today,one had ten times more, one five times more. The hoaxers want any new discoveries stopped. We live in a laboratory,expect colder temperatures next few decades as solar activity remains low/ ocean surface temps cools
gpp111 1 year ago
@rugbyguy
The theory that CO2 causes climate change began to fall apart when it was shown that in the ice core data temperature changes preceded, not followed changes in CO2 levels. It was laid to rest when Lindzen (MIT) and others showed that the positive feedback effects necessary for CO2 to cause harmful warming do not exist.
Results from experiments on Svensmark's theory should come out yet this year. Meanwhile, what proof do you have that CO2 causes harmful warming?
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg So in other words you don't follow the science at all. It was Hanson, AGW guy, who predicted CO2 would follow temp. During the natural changes recorded in ice cores orbital changes begin the cycle but CO2 gain or loss amplified the effect. The large scale swings are evidence of CO2s power.
Lintzen's last paper was so bad he admitted it had major flaws and withdrew it. If Lintzen was right the ice cores couldn't show such big shifts. That's why his work isn't convincing anyone.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
Now if only he could produce some science that could actually convince someone who knows what they are talking about. Of course those people know water vapour is a feedback not a forcing. His theory doesn't hold water.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
Does yours hold water ?.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn Well based on a century and a half of established physics. It fits with by multiple lines of observable evidence. We can directly measure the human finger print. So yeah. I think it does.
But It's not mine actually. It is the one held by thousands of scientists and Svensmark has failed to convince them. Quite simply put the correlations he based his ideas on broke down in 1991. His ideas are not totally invalidated but they simply don't make the case for what he claims.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
It's not easy to convince you when your reasoning is political, it's a false flag, and you do not admit that, because then a false flag does does not make much sense.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn In what way is the science political? Are the birds who are migrating earlier political? The melting glaciers? Rising oceans?
Exactly when did the great conspiracy, where all climate scientists were chosen as they entered university based on the ability to manipulate their minds, begin. Who was the guy who planned ahead and began creating the millions of data points in the instrumental record, not to mention creating all those ice cores.
You want political, follow the OIL money.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
It's a scam sat up by the white-collar to submit the blue-collars to you desk people.
Watch......Climate Change - is CO2 the cause?.......on YouTube, he use easy to understand graph, and they make it easy to see it's a scam.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn Watched it long ago. Carter is embarrassingly bad in that. Brilliant cherry picking and deception but really poor science.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
Svensmark should get the Nobel, not that idiot Gore!
judomagyar 1 year ago
@citizenschallengeYT -- CO2 is also part of atmosphere. And, even the IPCC Fourth Assessment shows that water vapor is a more significant GHG than CO2.
fdrouillard 1 year ago
What nonsense
The clouds are imbedded within the atmosphere, they are part of the picture but to try and claim they are the major driver shows a total lack of appreciation for the Atmosphere.
That's the horrible thing about these contrarians - they believe they can take a 5% portion of the system and ignore all other factors.
Shame on you Svenmark
citizenschallengeYT 1 year ago
He is genious, i love him (xD)
No seriously his teori is genious and i really belive it
Mikkel753 1 year ago
Henrik Svensmark will stand out as the Gallileo of our time that has been subdued by the "priests" in the CO2 lobby. It may take time before the public realize this, but it will come forth one day. As he shows in his graphs, there is a strong connection here. That's more than can be said about CO2.
spiff1003 1 year ago 2
climate. nasa. gov / evidence
aerobique 1 year ago
AGW-denial is based on PR campaingns and everyone who wants ! can find it out and understand the background.
All old lies. Repeated again and again. Has NOTHING to do with science today...
climate nasa gov / evidence
there IS NO respected scientific institute on this planet supporting "climate sceptics" ideas - because its not science - its desinformation to confuse the public.
~20% of the "sceptics" (lol) in the internet spaming comments to confuse public, beggin for followers
aerobique 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aerobique In fact the IPCC's own reports negate the effect of CO2 on our climate, and prove that Cosmic rays and Solar cycles control it. SEE Henrick Svensmark ...... please educate yourselves to this published science. There are many papers like it that negate CO2's effect on our climate, but this political movement seems to ignore all of that and just keep trying to move on to TAXING CO2, the primary objective. HMMMMM wonder why they want it?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@aerobique
Perhaps you'd like to share with us what is the evidence of AGW from these "respected scientific institutes" ? There is none !
Svensmark has produced hard evidence that short term climate changes have nothing to do with man.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aerobique
You seem to have missed my earlier commentS:
"Solar irradiance does vary but that is irrelevant. WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN !
Your comments are indicative of the level of stupidity of alarmists.
Here's the big one for you ... what is the evidence that man's CO2 has caused warming ? Funny how the IPCC can't find any ... any has to rely on models ... which we all know can give any result you want. "
sydneydoc 1 year ago
AGW-denial is based on PR campaingns and every idiot who wants! can find it out and understand the background.
All old lies. Repeated again and again.
For example the sun story^ is...its is a job for satellites.
According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been NO increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature HAS BEEN RISING fastest, the sun has NOT changed.
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been NO increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
You just don't understand do you. Alarmists are too stupid to get it. Try watching the video again.
Watch the more detailed series.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc
the "arlamists" the "believer" and the parroting "sheeps" are you deniers, who somehow pathological denying the mountains of scientific evidence AND consensus... very useful IDIOTS for the worldwide petro-mafia, the free-market and the sick! anti-environment movements... They are the ones who originated this stupid cult of distraction, fear, lies and ignorance. Better re-think your narrow point of view.
im not a doctor, so i cant help you furthermore
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
Solar irradiance does vary but that is irrelevant. WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN !
It is the variation in magnetic activity and its effect on cosmic rays that is a major cause of climate change. There is not a single scrap of evidence for the theory that man's CO2 has effected climate.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc
only a therapy can help people like you
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
A comment indicative of the level of stupidity of alarmists.
Here's the big one for you ... what is the evidence that man's CO2 has caused warming ? Funny how the IPCC can't find any ... any has to rely on models ... which we all know can give any result you want.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc the evidence for man made global warming is "overwhelming" and youre nothing but a typically sick and hysterical science-denier.
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
Alarmist idiots keep saying "overwhelming" but they are always too "overwhelmed" to find any.
C'mon ... give it your best shot ... the big one ... the big piece of "evidence" that will convince us of your AGW rubbish.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@aerobique Why do you want to put all your faith in a political movement like agw? There is no science to support it, only political/monetary gain for very few. Don't be a sheep, watch the video again, listen to John Christie. There are so many phd's that know the truth. The UN is pulling the greatest scam in history, and you are supporting it. Lets focus on real problems, ie. The oil spills in the oceans, dumping garbage in them too, when all of that garbage could be used to create energy.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
He is definetely right!!!
Dolphinspirit999 1 year ago
SCAAAM!!
I understand that the ice is melting and the water is rising...sure ok.. but the water would take a looong time to rise....
this video talks about it as if its gonna happen tomorrow.
gamekid1016 1 year ago
@gamekid1016
Arctic sea ice is currently ABOVE normal.
Anarctic sea ice has been increasing for 30 years.
Sea ice always melts in summer
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc Wrong again, though this at least is not a lie, just not the whole truth. Arctic sea ice extent has increased in recent years, but overall extend and volume are decrease by several percent percent. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, but a great deal if this is due to increase in speed of the ice streams from the land ice sheet. Overall mass has been decreasing.
Sea ice always melts in summer, but not all of it. We may someday sea an ice free arctic summer though.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
You just invent your nonsense as you go along don't you ?
Are you serious ?
Someday pigs might fly too ...
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc Quotation marks are a handy tool Sydney, as is google. So far you have claimed, laughably that all feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere are negative and that positive feedback mechanisms are "by definition" unstable. You have also claimed that the number of "anti-AGW" papers outnumber "pro-AGW" papers by an order of magnitude. When you make statements so easily shown to be false, it does lend credit to the idea that you're just making it up.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
Now ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, this is what a scam looks like...
Tapecutter59 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 2 years ago
A couple of scientific facts:
1) CO2 is a trace gas.
2) Temperature increases cause co2 to increase not vice-versa.
3) co2 has continued to increase during cooling periods between 1940-1975 and 1998-present.
4)The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, not a scientific one.
5) Periods of earth's warming and cooling correlate closely to sunspot and other solar activity.
Anthropegenic global warming is environmental extremism run amok and is not supported by REAL science. Great video.
conservativesunited 2 years ago
@conservativesunited 1) Irrelevant. Take out the CO2 from the atmosphere and our planet would be tens of degrees cooler. 2) Feedback loops. See #1, 3) Aerosols now banned are believed to have had a cooling effect in the middle of the century. The last decade has not been a cooling period 4) All organizations are political. The IPCC gather information from more climate scientists than any other. 5) Simply not true.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
1) Rubbish. No evidence.
2) All feedbacks in nature are STABLE negative ones, not the positive feedbacks assume by the IPCC's model selection, to get the results they want.
3) No evidence. 3rd world fossil fuel burning increased in 1980's, with no sulphate controls.
4) The haed of the IPCC is a railway engineer who is scamming millions.
5) There is no evidence that man's CO2 has caused any warming. Lots of evidence solar activity is a major influence.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc 1) Have you even looked? There is decades of evidence gathered on C02's effect on the atmosphere. Google Tyndal for starters. 2) Do you even know what that sentence means? What do you mean by stable. If all feedback was negative this would be a snowball planet. 3) Are you completely unaware of the banning of CFCs? 4) Unsupported charge and ignores qualification of the hundreds of contributing scientists. 5) Total opposite of truth. Solar activity doesn't even correlate.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
Exactly what is the evidence that man's CO2 has caused global warming ? The IPCC has none in its report. Perhaps you have some ? The world is waiting !
You alarmists obviously have no understanding what feedback means. Give one demonstrated example of a positive feedback system in nature. By definition, positive feedbacks are unstable.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc I guess hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers over the decades aren't good enough for you. Basic search on google scholar brought up plenty. Models predicted the increases we have seen so far. We know that carbon dioxide gas has been increasing due to human influence. We know it is a greenhouse gas. No other model has even come close to explaining recent temperature rise.
Don't know where you got your definition of positive feedback, but it's wrong.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
Thousands more peer reviewed articles have shown AGW to be scammers' rubbish.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc Please stop making stuff up. The vast majority of peer reviewed articles are in support of AGW. The handful of dissenters are often from different fields and their claims have been thoroughly addressed. Does the name Naomi Oreskes ring a bell? Probably not, as your comments show you have not researched the matter very thoroughly.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
There are over 450 papers alone showing that the MWP was warmer than currently.
Alarmists like you are not just stupid, you are totally blind to the facts.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc 450 papers? Care to site your source on this one. That's the sort of info that requires a great deal of research. Mind mentioning who did this and where they are published?
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
Listed on WattsUpWithThat
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
EXACTLY what is the evidence that man's CO2 has caused GW ?
C'mon it shouldn't be so hard should it ?
Funny how the IPCC can't find any evidence ... all it has is models. If you think it has evidence, give a paper reference !!
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc You again ignored the question. What would you consider evidence? We have hundreds of peer reviewed papers that explain the physics of it and predict successfully the expected effects.
Models are evidence if they successfully model what is going on and/or predict what has occurred. We have that in spades. No other competing models even come close.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf
Anything other than models. Garbage in = garbage out.
You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I can build a model to give any result I want. Models are useless. Climate models use the same math that weather models do ... except that there are far more unknowns, such as ocean and cloud behaviour. If models can't predict whether it will rain next week, they have no chance predicting 100 years out.
IPCC models failed to forecast the past 15 yrs no warming
sydneydoc 1 year ago
It's time to get off of the co2 horse people, observations and science are steadily debunking GHG theory.
unstableian 2 years ago
How old is this video? At 3:23 he talks about his work with Eigel Friis-Christensen on solar forcing and the correlation with temps. Problem is, since those original studies came out in the 1990's the data has diverged and the idea discarded.
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, to their credit, were doing good science but the correlation didn't hold.
People keep pulling up old information like this not realizing it's old science. Same with Prof Lindzen and the iris effect.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
Tree........You would have to have a picture of Marice Strong on your wall..........
bfpccbm 2 years ago
Congratulations for the hard work........I look at this thing in a new and enlightened way thanks to you guys......
watch all 5 of these videos
bfpccbm 2 years ago
4.31 and 7.28 notice how the graphs conveniently stop around 1985 and'90
that's because after that the relationship breaks down. nobody argues that solar (duh) and cosmic rays won't have an influence. but that influence is now being overridden by co2
treeplanter99 2 years ago
CRU claims that "it must be man" because the warming since 1950 "can't be explained".
CRU/IPCC forget to mention the rate of warming DECREASED after 1945, despite a 1200% increase in fossil fuel burning.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
@sydneydoc... The decreased warming after WW2 is well understood to be because of aerosols.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
As with all the GW nonsense, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. In fact aerosols continued to increase after 1970 as 3rd world fossil fuel burning overtook 1st world.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
@sydneydoc... I think you should do a little more critical research on the topic.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
As I keep saying to alarmists ... where's the evidence ?
I am met with silence.
Don't bother looking in the IPCC reports ... it has none ... unless you'd like to try to give a page reference ;-)))
sydneydoc 2 years ago
@sydneydoc... Are you going to sit there and try to tell me that the IPCC report contains NO scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming?
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
YES ! NONE !!
All it has is models. Not a shed of evidence.
If you think it does,
(a) Describe it in your own words
(b) Give a page reference to it in an IPCC report.
Forget about Al Gore's ice cores ... they show CO2 rises AFTER temp increases.
Forget about stratospheric cooling ... none since 1994.
Forget about that troposphere tropical hot spot ... no one can find it.
Forget about "rapid" temp increases ... even Phil Jones now admits there's none.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
@sydneydoc... Whew! You have NOT done your research.
Think about it for one second. What IS the IPCC? The International Panel on Climate Change. Their JOB is to consolidate all the data regarding climate change and make reports. All the scientific data representing climate change is there.
You obviously don't understand the 800 year lag. That has never been at issue. It's always been understood how that works.
google: Alley biggest control knob
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
Answer my question
(a) Describe it in your own words
(b) Give a page reference to it in an IPCC report.
... at this point alarmists go quiet
sydneydoc 2 years ago
I have the AR4 Sythesis report open right now. Or we can go to one of the group reports. What ever you like. Tell me where you want to start.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
Rob,
You are the alarmist, not me. Simply try to answer my question
(a) Describe the "evidence" in your own words for man caused warming.
(b) Give a page reference to it in an IPCC report.
Not models, not speculation ... hard evidence.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
Do you have a problem looking at section 2.3.1 - Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide?
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
In my words...
a) Over the latter half of the 20th century and into the early 21st CO2 levels have been increasing.
b) Section 2.3.1 from working group 1 report
We can take this step by step for you...
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
You have got to be kidding !
Is that your best shot ?
sydneydoc 2 years ago
Humor me. We're just getting started. I'm trying to keep it simple for you.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
I hope you have the same page of the IPCC report open so we can go over this together, sydneydoc.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
I'm wasting my time with your nonsense.
Read the ClimateGate emails and the HARRY-README. Spend a few days reading the daily articles being posted on WattsUpWithThat rather than alarmist bs. Read BBC's interview of Jones ... he's largely responsible for the IPCC garbage.
Read about your fav railway engineer who heads the IPCC and how he's been scamming.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
@sydneydoc.... Well then I claim victory in this debate.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
@sydneydoc... Did you read the actual interview transcript? I bet you didn't.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
@sydneydoc I've read the BBC interview. You either haven't read it or haven't understood it.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
Your response is a joke so humouring you is easy. I can see you need it simple.
A correlation does not imply causation ... and the correlation between CO2 and temp is very poor anyway.
Do some research on the increase in fossil fuel usage after WW2 ... a 1200% increase but the rate of warming DECREASED !
The world has been warming since the Little Ice Age.
Do you know who Phil Jones is ? The man responsible for IPCC temp data at CRU. Even he says no warming due to CO2.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look, we can go through this like adults if you like...
You asked:
"(a) Describe the "evidence" in your own words for man caused warming.
(b) Give a page reference to it in an IPCC report."
I am doing exactly this.
Do you have the page in the IPCC AR4?
Do you agree that CO2 has increased?
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
"Meanwhile CO2 effects are undisputed, wel understood. For more than a century now... "
Which is meaningless since it's been clearly established that there has been no increase in atmospheric CO2 in at least 160 years.
p62c61 2 years ago
Indeed, how can we predict the warming based on Co2 if we don't even understand how low clouds affect it's feedback.
Finlandcitizen 2 years ago
Even Phil Jones, head CRU, (stood down because of ClimateGate) now agrees there's been no warming due to man.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
Saying that cosmic rays produce clouds in a trstlab is one thing. Saying it happens in the atmosphere is another. Than: some clouds cool the Earth (Stratus), some trap the warmth much like CO2 (Cirrus and other clouds). Svensmark cannot say which clouds are affected. He cannot say what it translates to in praxis. So saying: more clouds means cooling is in itself incorrect. He has got a lot to do. Meanwhile CO2 effects are undisputed, wel understood. For more than a century now...
govpavlicek 2 years ago
Actually, the videos clearly state that it is the low clouds that are mainly affected and that this cloud formation is thus cooling. Very good program. I can recommend anyone to watch all of the 5 vids.
kaskadaks 2 years ago
All Green Gaia Marxist what is your solution collect billions every year so you can cry it is man made Globull warming 30 years later the greatest morons of all time the solution is to make Al Gore a Billionaire and a Globull tax. What a pack of morons. I can't believe anyone is gullible to listen to all these lies.
BruceH59 2 years ago 2
Well what do you know, the Earth really isn't the center of the universe and it's climate is affected by other forces. We all know what happened to the first men who suggested that Sun did not revolve around the earth.
joygarner 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YOu Liars and blasphemers of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of G-D. He was sent By the Father to give His life for all of us. We must repent, to turn from our sins. NO Drunkard or sexual immoral shall enter into heaven, That means gay marriage or gay life, drunkards , drug abusers and the unbelievers. I say REPENT or accept the JUDGEMent of the Unrepentant.
Look not for the approval of men but of THE LORd Messiah Yeshua NOW IS THE TIME! Do it while the blood runs warm in your veins.
stavros333 2 years ago
The small segment about the cloud chamber is rather profound, I think. In essence the cloud chamber was so named because the effect it produced inside resembled natural clouds and not named because of an understanding that natural clouds were formed in a nearly identical fashion. There it was sitting waiting for the correlation to be discovered for years and years. It makes you wonder just how many more staring-you-in-the-face scientific ideas are yet to be discovered.
pocoapoco2 2 years ago 2
I just read an article on the "Welt" about Henrik Svensmark .... he has a VERY powerful Message to say. It´s an outright scandal that nobody wanted to publish his works. Climategate has revealed one thing .... the press has lacked it´s role in this matter.
Give the man the Nobel Price of Physics. By the way In CERN they are preparing an experiment which is going to PROVE his theory .... !!! 3,5 Billion Euros well spend as it seems. ;-)
ohmannhey 2 years ago 2
@ohmannhey
welt = springer verlag = bildzeitung
und ich wette ulli kulke hat wieder geschirieben.. arme schweine ihr
aerobique 1 year ago
It seems clear that there is an indisputable correlation between solar magnetism and temperature. Equally, it is indisputable that there is a clear correlation between solar magnetism and cloud formation. Question is - what impact does cloud formation have?
I personally think this theory merits being examined thoroughly.
At the same time, I believe CO2 reducing measures and other envoronmentally friendly activities should be increased.
LittleGodOfThunder 2 years ago
@LittleGodOfThunder
Svensmark has 4 versions of his theory.
Each one has been formally examined thoroughly already. Each one debunked.
And here's the papers, which you can Google:
"Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations"
"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"
"Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover"
greyflcn 2 years ago
if they are ''debunked' as you put it
why are you here then!
Celestial modulation is a fact, peer reviewed by real scientists and all
now troll back to Al Gores camp
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
@marktimmer2212
Well would you care to mention which peer review sources you're talking about?
greyflcn 2 years ago
found1, NASA chief Michael Griffin
and that 1 frrom IPCC, the 1 who quit
and 30000 that sued Al Gore.
just out of curiousity,
do you work for the Heartland institute?
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
@marktimmer2212
Why would I be working for a conservative thinktank?
Also, that "30,000" scientists thing is fake.
(And the sued part is even more fake)
greyfalcon. net/ oism
greyfalcon. net/ oism2
Anyways, why can't I just be a concerned citizen with a futile hobby of debating things on youtube?
greyflcn 2 years ago
motive
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
@marktimmer2212
But even if I were some secret spy from a thinktank *ooh scary*
Why would I be from a conservative thinktank
Wouldn't it instead be a liberal thinktank?
Kind of like how US torturing prisoners in Guantanamo is supposed to be all a secret liberal plot, right?
greyfalcon. net/ inhofe
greyflcn 2 years ago
its not that is it scary or secret, its obvious
left/right conservative/democratic
to me it is all theater, entertainment for the masses thanks for the futile debate though.
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
Not fake, just still ongoing..
Al Gore IS going to have to face the courts on his lies... I hope he gets put in jail . !
Just wanted to share some information. Jon Colamann and the scientists are still gathering charges, so ..
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago
@FromDimmuLand
It's based off a fake scientific paper, in a fake scientific journal with the word "Surgeons" in it's title, with two of the authors being father and son.
And the petition has zero verification process as to the credentials behind the names signed.
It's just a big list of names.
AND as for John Coleman, that guy has never written a peer reviewed physical science paper in his life.
He's just a glorified TV weatherman.
Stop trying to avoid science.
greyflcn 2 years ago
Carslaw 2002
Nir Shaviv
Henrik Svensmark
Patterson
be gone
who are you?
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
@marktimmer2212
Well as mentioned.
Svensmark's stuff got nailed already
And Nir Shaviv admits his stuff isn't relevant beyond millions of years timescale.
(Since it takes a hell of a long time for earth to pass through "spiral arms" of the galaxy)
And I'll have to look up the other two.
greyflcn 2 years ago
Svensmark nailed already?
thaen why are you camping here?
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
you are not going to tell me that you have put all your money on this lame horse, did you?
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
So wrong, NASA them self say there is a belt of high energy just outside our solar system... Yea, you can google it, instead of talking shit...That is the second time this Fall that nasa has published articles on things they Dont Know what is Just Outside Our planet Pluto, coming towards us...
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago
Yea, science is bullshit, and it is proven..
The reason you say Coleman is a bad guy and not Al Gore who swindle people for hundreads of millions of dollars, is that you are an fucking ignorant asshole, plain and simple...Go kill your self as Gore wants, since you are such a cocksucking good friend of his..
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago
@FromDimmuLand
Better answer
NEITHER of them are relevant scientists.
And I have no idea what this "high energy outside our solar system published by nasa" thing you're talking about is.
greyflcn 2 years ago
Why dont you google it then,things are far from what you are lead to believe by the Corrupt MainStreamMedia..
NASA have discovered twice this fall 'things' they dont know what are just outside out our system, that is spooky. Heard about the Photon belt ? Massive field of high energy photons coming into our system and I think that is why all the planets are changing. And there is supposedly an brownDwarf coming too, can be observer on Skyprogs if you follow the orbit of pluto.
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago
@FromDimmuLand
So I looked up "photon belt"
And all I got was a link to something associated with 2012 apocalypse, new age mythology, and UFO's....
Is that really what you're talking about?
greyflcn 2 years ago
@greyflcn In away , why it is associated with 2012 I dont know, maybe they stuffed it in there for the same purpose you wont take it seriously..
NASA published several articlse the last months on it..
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago
@FromDimmuLand
Well if there's anything.
Cosmic rays ARE photons (not actually rays)
And more of them penetrate the earth magnetosphere, when you have less solar activity.
And solar activity is at it's usual 11 year cycle low point.
greyfalcon. net/ sunspots
greyfalcon. net/ solar4.png
Perhaps that's what you're talking about?
greyflcn 2 years ago
Ye, in a way, there is much goingtogether here.
The Heliosphere and the Magnetosphere(Magnetic Fields) are protecting us against this Cosmic Ray bombardments, but now, the shields are going down,both the Magneto and Helios, that increases the ammount of rays coming into the solarsystem thru the Heliosphere and also more xrays from the Sun thru the Magnetosphere, this heats up the planets.
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago
@FromDimmuLand
Except no scientist is arguing that cosmic rays heat up the earth.
If anything, Svensmark is arguing the opposite. (And doing a pretty bad job of it)
greyfalcon. net/ cosmic
greyfalcon. net/ cosmic2
greyfalcon. net/ cosmic3
greyflcn 2 years ago
Hi,
I have seen the theory(-ies) are due to be tested at CERN in Switzerland.
I - and nobody else for that matter - knows the "truth" in this. I just think such evident correlations must be thought through. If the data is correct they must have some bearing.
On the other hand, and as I said in my comment, this should by no means rule out ongoing environmental measures to make this world cleaner.
LittleGodOfThunder 2 years ago
@LittleGodOfThunder
Perhaps,
But we do know there's no obvious correlation.
And I find it a bit weird to say we should conduct science on the basis of evidence that doesn't even exist.
greyflcn 2 years ago
why are you an econazi ?
what is so attracting., money power knowledge ?
please explain
marktimmer2212 2 years ago 2
Is there anything particularly wrong about wanting to understand reality?
Also the problem with Svensmark, asside from a lack of correlation.
Is that his cloud condensation nuclei formed by cosmic rays aren't large enough for form water droplets.
greyfalcon. net/ cosmic3
greyflcn 2 years ago
Comment removed
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
sry boutat
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
Isn't this question a little more important than to downgrade it to; if the outcome doesn't match the theory, then change the outcome.....even if it's empirical data! this data is terrifying for all "experts" out there, earning big money but not telling the whole truth! We demand the true science to divert the mysticism in this matter! What are YOU waiting for! Get to it Right Now!!
raptorpaw 2 years ago
It's politics as usual in the environmental movement.
Nmber6 2 years ago 2
The problem with the alarmist point of view is all they want to deal with are the putative effects of co2 and shove a carbon tax/trading system down our throats. There is no comprehensive attempt to understand or address other aspects of climate change that may be easier and cheaper and more effective/less damaging economically to mitigate. Instead all we hear is advocacy for a regressive tax or complex trading system. The "solution" sounds like credit default swaps and derivatives trading
Nmber6 2 years ago 2
Reduce GHG's:
You say Svensmark's work has "serious problems" and that's why he couldn't get it published. Didn't you listen to Eugene Parker (University of Chicago prof., discoverer of the solar wind, winner of the James Clerk Maxwell Prize) laud Svensmark's work and explain why he initially had a hard time getting it published? Now it is being tested at CERN in a major experiment. If it works he should win a Nobel Prize. Ideas of CO2 as the driver of climate will then be over.
groweg 2 years ago 3
@groweg
You're a little bit behind the times on that one.
Svensmark's theory is pretty much dead ;D
greyfalcon. net/ cosmic
greyfalcon. net/ cosmic2
Seriously though, this is the 4th times he's come up with a theory that cosmic rays are the issue. Each with a completely different mechanism.
And time and time again he gets disproved.
It's like he's been doing the scientific method in reverse.
greyflcn 2 years ago
IT isn't too hard to understand Henrik's theory. What warms our Solar System? The sun. In fact, if not for our sun, the Earth would not be inhabitable. Sooo..
Is it a huge leap to think that natural variations in the sun's output might have some significant impact on our little planet?
And what about the far more dramatic climate swings that happened long before mankind could make any significant contribution to CO2? Dinosaur gas? Seriously? Hello -
ThePreacherMan 2 years ago
@ThePreacherMan
Well Svensmark's theory isn't that straight forward.
"His theory", or atleast one of his 4 versions of his theories.
Is that as the sun gets weak, then more "cosmic rays" are able to penetrate the earth's magnetosphere.
And his theory is that those cosmic rays somehow are a significant factor in cloud formation. Catch being, there's no evidence to support that.
As for the Sun, the issue is it's not "only" the sun.
greyfalcon. net/ solar0.png
greyfalcon. net/ climate2
greyflcn 2 years ago
more commonly sensible evidence than co2 being the progenitor
dantronamus 2 years ago
@dantronamus
Well it doesn't really matter what's "easy to comprehend"
The issue is what the evidence actually shows. And Svensmark has no evidence.
As for CO2, if it were happening, what you'd expect is that for the specific spectrum of longwave radiation that CO2 blocks. You'd expect less going out into space, and more coming back down.
And that's exactly the what the empirical evidence from satellites over the past 4 decades shows.
greyfalcon. net/ greenhouse
greyflcn 2 years ago
what satelite are you revering to Sputnik?
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
@marktimmer2212
Referring to the IRIS satellite in 1970
And later the IMG satellite in 1996
Just read the article:
greyfalcon. net/ greenhouse
greyflcn 2 years ago
good luck with pushing the iron mountain agenda
you know best who your opponents are
you dont need me for that
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
must have been some quality that IRIS in the 70s
o yeah btw Climategate you are BUSTED!!
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
greyflcn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Funny. He said no scientific journal would publish his work. It is likely that there were serious problems with it.
I'll stick with the conclusions of our historically reliable institurions like NAS, AAAS, EPA, NOAA, SOCC, AGU, and many others. They all say HUMANS are warming the plant by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land. This is old news. It goes back to The Charney Report in 1979.
Deniers don't have credible support.
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
well i clearly havnt been listin' to want Henrik Svensmark want to say.. he says that Humans are HELPING warming up the planet but not the main reason, the main reason is the clouds becouse they are the reason to the greenhouse effect..
DjDuckyStyle 2 years ago
Clearly you are missing the point. Even Svensmark admits that humans are warming the planet. So what's the problem? Even if, contrary to what our reliable institutions have said, that the majority of influence is something else do we not have the responsibility to those that come after us not to unnecessarily degrade their habitat? A bit long-winded but a reasonable argument.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
I belive in Svensmark. Actually you can just look at the ice ages.
We are actually also just about to enter a new ice age soon aswell.
Of course we can just burn up hell lot of CO2 and manually warm up the earth.
mitalvn 2 years ago 4
great video. global warming is a bunch of bull shit. we're not warming anymore, we're cooling. and notice we dont hear about global warming as much in the media...its because we're cooling
tippman2k01 2 years ago 3
Not evil, Just Wrong.
RIHeron76 2 years ago