A technical paper that appeared in July, 2003 in GSA Today, a journal of the
Geological Society of America, gave evidence that the periodic cooling and
warming of the planet over the past millions of years is cyclical and is
caused by a complex interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays. It
concluded that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main "driver" of climate
change.
Dr. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist from the Racah Institute of Physics of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Jan Veiser a geochemist at the
University of Ottawa in Canada, say that temperature variations are due more
to cosmic forces than to the actions of man.
In the article, Shaviv and Veiser tell of their studies illustrating a
correlation between past cosmic ray flux - the high-energy particles
reaching us from stellar explosions - and long-term climate variability, as
recorded by oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine
fossils. The level of cosmic ray activity reaching the earth and its
atmosphere was reconstructed using another isotopic record in meteorites.
The study showed that peak periods of cosmic rays reaching the earth over
the past 550 million years coincided with lower global temperatures,
apparently due to the way that the cosmic rays promote low-level cloud
formation, hence blocking out the sun. No correlation was obtained,
however, with the changing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The conclusion of the two scientists is that celestial processes seem to be
the dominant influence on climate change, and that increased carbon dioxide
release, while certainly not beneficial, is only secondary to those forces
which are beyond our control.
For me I think I'll do what I see Frank say all of the time...
yeah see if you can find out some thing about the trails
Frank. Sling some mud for me!!!!!!!
Braille trail 4 wheelers
we wheel by feel
79 chev 3/4 bb
"z" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> > "z" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> > > > >
> > > > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > > >
> > > > No we don't!
> > > >
> > > > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> > concentration
> > > > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
does
> > not prove
> > > > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> > anything. The
> > > > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
Looking
> > at one
> > > > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
As a
> > > > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research
> > don't even
> > > > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
few
> > years.
> > > > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
trying to
> > infere
> > > > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
The
> > errors
> > > > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
they
> > are
> > > > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
then
> > groomed the
> > > > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> > treated as a
> > > > loon.
> > >
> > > The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > > one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > > inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > > the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > > confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > > reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > > declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they "decided
> > > on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there some
> > > kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > > climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw the
> > > economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > > warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > > have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > > operation?
> > > And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the establishment
> > > who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> >
> > I believe they are wrong. They discount solar influence when IMHO it is
a
> > far more likely cause. WE know solar output is variable, we know how
great a
> > temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
(think
> > seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
behind
> > global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
>
> Well, here are the estimated magnitudes of the components in the IPCC
> model, with confidence limits <pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/warming.jpg>.
> Compare the magnitude of the solar component, though large, with the
> magnitude of the CO2 component, even with the max end of the solar
> confidence limit and the min end of the CO2 confidence limit. The
> thing being, that the reasons for the IPCC adopting these estimates
> are given in the report along with references to the published
> studies, etc. A far cry from just saying they 'discount' solar
> warming. So do you have any such evidence for your more solar
> position? (This wan't meant to be as hostile a challenge as it sounds
> on reading it, just a conversational inquiry tone).
