http://www.desmogblog.com/more-dirt-on-the-dscovr-climate ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/government-insider-document-sho ...
http://www.celsias.com/blog/podcasts/celsias_show_003.mp3 ...


-David Ahlport

(But then, where does the milk come from?  The Cosmic Creatrix Cow of Scandinavian mythology?)

One may quibble with whether the story quite fits the intellectual problem of GW-deniers; but nevertheless, it is always pleasant to be reminded of it.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

He's refuted them time and time again.

Ultimately the AGW deniers have two major blocks of support; the cynical profiteers and the "true believers." There is a chance that a cynical profiteer could come around to seeing that destroying his ability to air freight fresh grapes from Chile will detract from the point of making a profit. Reference to reality ultimately works with them and some change in behavior occurs. The change always expresses itself as support for a cap-and-trade system but we'll leave that for another thread.

The "true believers" aren't going to give an inch because telling them that the toys they have today will be put away tomorrow or worse that we are going to close the toy chest and quit making cookies forever is just not acceptable. They were told, usually by the cynical profiteers, that if they just pushed the go-kart long enough they will get their turn to drive. Only the most seriously world-view destroying of events will turn them from their faith. The techno-fix folks are true believers.

AGW is going to be with the human race until it learns to live within the limits of it's environment. It is independent of oil, natural gas or coal burning. If zero-point energy were available or the "Mr. Fusion" our descendants would still have this argument in 150 years or so when heat pollution would be doing the work that GHGs are doing now. Nothing will make the happy motoring utopia sustainable for 9 billion people.

It's just easier to say they've got "turtles all the way down" and move on. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Note: see science fiction humorist Terry Pratchet for some (totally unfounded in reality) details on world carrying turtles.

Put the Carbon Back

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.

"Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds," he told BBC News.

"He predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it."

A recent BBC News article claims "'No Sun link' to climate change" in its headline. Yet a careful read of the article strongly suggests that there is a solar link to climate change, but that some researchers looking at the theory simply don't have a good understanding of the nature and strength of that link as it relates to cloud formation.

There are many possible explanations why the research performed by Lancaster University scientists might have failed to live up to expectations. Among those possibilities are: (1) researchers do not adequately understand the theory (as suggested by its chief proponent, Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, DNSC), (2) the relationship is not manifest as anticipated by those researchers (i.e., the effect may not be manifested in the time and space they expected), (3) they did not look at a sufficiently robust set of conditions (locations, season, etc.).

Here's his evidence.  He moves up the line of latitude and says, well there are less cosmic rays at higher longitudes, and so there should be more cloud cover.

That completely ignores any other aspect of the earth's geometry on cloud formation!

We're talking about overall cloud formation based on cosmic radiation.

The blue curve shows the low cloud amount (seasonally corrected) against time measured from 1983 when satellite measurements of clouds became available.

B) Your going to blog yourself to death trying to keep up with all of the rest of us. The shotgun approach is not going to work and  simply jumping in with repeated denials is tedious. Try a reference to reality now and then. It's spring, check out the outdoors once in a while. We worry about you.


Put the Carbon Back

  And once La Nina ends, and we surpass the 1998 temp record, their will be yet another mole. It seems to me we should be using mole traps, and not mallets, as the wack-a-mole game is nonending.

The one cited by Romm above, and two others in support of cosmoclimatology through the millenia.

I certainly will read all in detail (the rest of you might try that as well...instead of ranting about "turtles" and salamanders and whatnot).

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/three-preprints-on-cosm ...

Three preprints on cosmoclimatology
During the last week, there have been three cosmoclimatological preprints by two teams on the arXiv.

Rusov et al. (Ukraine) argue that all observed climate change at the timescale of millenia and millions of years can be explained by two factors, namely the the solar output and the galactic cosmic ray flux that determines the cloudiness.

The reaction from the alarmists is akin to a stunned Mullet;

Quoting CERN on their 5 (five) year programme:  

"The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"

It's odd that the alarmists do not react favourably at the possibility of good news.