Kate

Interesting article. I read something a number of years ago regarding the increase of neutrinos and their effect on the earth's core.

The gist was that due to a wave of cosmic activity the rate of neutrino "hits" at the Sarnia neutrino lab had increased.

At some point in the article there was some speculation that the increased neutrino activity was having an impact on the temerature of the earths core.

The climate change idiots may be thinking too small. But then small is as small does.

I will backpeddle and try to come up with the article I reffered to, if my synapses are capable.

Syncro

Neat (however, not sure why you put this article in the 'The Sound Of Settled Science' section, as the results aren't even it yet :D. To simply expect science to stop just because a certain theory is well accepted by the majority is to ignore history).

The results will certainly be interesting, but hopefully the researchers do the proper control and actually study Venus as well, which should show the same pattern of cosmic ray influence on clouds (can that even be measured, I don't know). Without proper controls, any experiment is useless, and if the researchers can't differentiate between cosmic rays affecting clouds vs. all other forces affecting clouds, this research will be useless.

PS: Please change the header of "The Sound Of Settled Science". NO scientific field is settled, not even that studying gravity or evolution. It keeps constantly improving (although with the huge amount of data, only in the specific details, very rarely in the overarching theories). I know it's catchy and all that, but it's utterly meaningless to an person that has even the faintest understanding of how science works

Since time began, something(s) has been driving climate change on earth. That is for sure. From periodic ice ages, with kilometer thick ice, to high latitude tropical eras, change has been the only constant.

Another thing that is for sure --- mankind will find out, with 99.9% certainty, just what is resposible for the changes. It may well be cosmic ray influence.

Meanwhile, in the alarmist corner, 'The Sounds Of Settled Science' is slowly but surely turning into 'The Sounds Of Silence'. A sure sign of defeatism.

'Muddy The Water' Trolls do not count :)

Roland, the intent of the post title is to be mildly sarcastic.

It was chosen to remind readers that we have been repeatedly told that "the science is settled" on the subject of global warming and climate change.

If anyone here is interested, Steve Martinivich of Enter Stage Right has written a brief fact sheet on how the "settled science" is slowly sinking:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0807/editorial.htm

For regulars here, it'll largely serve as a review - with one exception: the discovery of a new ocean current is mentioned there. Unfortunately, CLOUD isn't.

"Studies suggest they may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover."

???

You mean the fine particulate matter that is found in the atmosphere around the globe except around the equatorial Pacific isn't good enough for the formation of water droplets?
Here's a thought. Humans emit carbon from fossil fuels, and then reduce the natural carbon sinks by cutting down forests and causing the acidification of the oceans. This forces the carbon cycle to go completely out of whack increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. With the increases in anthropogenic GHGs, a positive feedback is created when this CO2 causes an increase in the global temperature, thereby allowing an increase water vapour held in the atmosphere (a much more effect greenhouse gas), which raises temperature even more and therefore increases the cloud cover. Hmm, now where have we heard this before?
Oh well I’ll wait to see the outcome of their experiment, but really there is already enough fine particulate matter in the atmosphere in the form of dust and pollen to allow the nucleation of water droplets in the atmosphere.

In other news Hurricane Felix is now a Cat 5 and heading for Honduras after a very impressive growth rate from tropical storm status. Caused by global warming? Nobody can tell, but this will be the second Cat 5 hurricane in just a couple of weeks.

@Kate,

Every single scientific summary I have ever read has said that it is very likely that major climate change is occurring and that there is a strong suggestion that humans are playing a role in this change (the extend of that role or the outcome of the climate change is still debated). The media, like always, is bound to talk in absolutes, maybe perpetuating the idea of settled science (can't say, I haven't watched TV in a long time(

There is no need to counter the inane statements of the media with and equally inane statement. If it was true that science could be settled, then your attempt at satire would be affective. However, as science can never be settled, the statement is vacuous: both you and the media are making deeply flawed statement. Maybe change it to "The non-existence of settled science". In this case, you'd show that the media was incorrect while at the same time making a perfectly correct statement.

IT WASN'T KATE !!

IT WAS SUZUKI AND OTHERS THAT COINED THE PHRASE 'THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED !! Clear ??

@ 'that thing around the neck that is dragging down brains';

An increase in CO2 concentration does not lead warming -- it follows. Been proven with data and graphs. Gore lies. Been proven wrong on many points -- 1934, 1998, ect. Stop listening to Prophets --- they are crazy.

Two hurricanes in an other wise quite, so far, season ----- following an unusually quite 06 'cane' season. Your point ??

Why do we bother ??

"An increase in CO2 concentration does not lead warming -- it follows. Been proven with data and graphs."

Oh really, in the current warming trend? Now back up your statement that “graphs and the data” show that temperature is presently leading CO2? Please ensure you only include credible sources. Remember, we’re not talking about historical climate change, we’re talking about today’s climate change.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2905.htm

A sarcastic "the-science-is-settled' hit is very relevant and deserved.

We are talking about a world wide fraud that is unraveling. And not just because the science is NOT settled. The attempt by the chicken-littles to stampede us has failed.

Europe (the instigator) is isolated;

[But Russia, Japan, Canada, New
Zealand and Switzerland objected to setting the stringent range in negotiations about extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the main plan
for fighting global warming that runs to 2012, delegates said.
--Alister Doyle, Reuters, 31 August 2007]

Suzuki's "reason" for Kyoto (population explosion) is fast becoming a mute point;

[China says its one-child policy has helped the fight against global warming by avoiding 300 million births, the equivalent of the population
of the United States.]Reuters

Kyoto had legs for as long as it did because of the media. Dust also;

[When the environment emerged as a powerful political issue in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the media had more credibility than it has today. The media has joined government, labor and big business as powerful institutions about which the public is skeptical. In Pew's most recent
media usage survey from 2006, just 20 percent said that they believed all or most of what they read in Time magazine, for example. Time's
overheated tag line for its April cover story on global warming, "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid," probably only confirms the skeptics' suspicions
about exaggeration.
--Karlyn Bowman, The Washington Post, 31 August 2007]

"We are talking about a world wide fraud that is unraveling."

Bring on the straw man. What you are seeing is an increase in crackpots spouting pseudo science in order to make a name for themselves by making a gullible public think they have disproved man made global warming. The science is very far from being discredited.

Oh and about Karlyn Bowman, she's right, don't listen to the media. They are far from being a completely credible source of information, especially in the US and especially Fox News.

Alb; "Oh really, in the current warming trend?"

Yep, there it is ---- the ole 'this-time-it-is-different' thing. It's ok. Trust me. Nasdaq at 5000 seven years ago was "ok" too.

Sorry, you will have to wait about 800 years ---- that is how far CO2 concentrations have been behind warmings.

Has been that way since time began but now the alarmists are impatient ---- they think this is the first time in 4 billion years that their "new" thing is happening. Just because they arrived on the scene ---- and need more "research" money. Even though the science is already settled, ya see.

CO2 > water vapour feedback ???

Climate models say blah blah --- junk in model, junk out.

A thousand junk in models yields a thousand junk outs. A thousand times zero is still zero. Simple. Besides, as time goes on the models are being proven junk.

How many years ago now did Suzuki say we 'would have' been doomed ?? Anybody worried about a Canadian winter day being -25.0C instead of-25.5 ?? a hundred years from now ??

Kate stick to farming and quit trying to be anything more.

Besides other successful endeavours, Kate's sda has been voted 'Best Canadian Blog' three years runing. Partly because she allows comments. Other sites are afraid of commenters. Truth may hurt, ya see.

Back to cosmic rays.

They may in fact rock the Earth's climate from time to time. Something has been doing it to us ---- for a few billion years already. But we are still here.

"What you are seeing is an increase in crackpots spouting pseudo science in order to make a name for themselves by making a gullible public think ...."

Your absolutely right.

You've FINALLY figured out Gore and Suzuki.

Congrats.

"ron in kelowna at September 3, 2007 2:16 AM"

"POOF" there it goes. Any slight amount credibility you might have had on the subject just went up in smoke and I'm going to bed.

"The Sound of Settled Science" is perfect in highlighting the unscientific and in fact bullyish tone of the pro-Kyoto activists themselves.
The fact some lowly MMGW footsoldiers can't even grasp the oxymoron "settled science" makes it even more apt.

BTW...I've made a scientific discovery of my own.
I have finally determined the major difference between the global cooling of the 70's and todays global warming.

Marketing.

Observer

I think you nailed it.

Syncro

"In other news Hurricane Felix is now a Cat 5 and heading for Honduras after a very impressive growth rate from tropical storm status. Caused by global warming? Nobody can tell, but this will be the second Cat 5 hurricane in just a couple of weeks.

Posted by: albatros39a at September 3, 2007 12:53 AM

Ummmmm...lets have a look..21 cat 5's since 1928.And oh my...the second one in 2 weeks!!! It's nature Alby.Get used to it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes

Or do you figure you can change it?

"Kate stick to farming and quit trying to be anything more.

Posted by: ok4ua at September 3, 2007 2:21 AM "

What a laugh.Guess what. She doesn't farm. Man the trolls are really assholes tonight.Guess you are hitting a sore spot Kate!! Excellent

I take great joy in being able to do this:

Comment by ok4ua blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]

The issue of cosmic rays and clouds is interesting but I will point out that the news article is almost 1 year old so it is not breaking news.

This is essentially Svensmarks's idea (and Shiv before him). The problem is that the ideas don't fit well with observations. For example William C took a look at it.

Regards,
John

Regards,
John

albatross, the handle seems to be definitive.

John Cross "This is essentially Svensmarks's idea (and Shiv before him). The problem is that the ideas don't fit well with observations."

It's extremely tenative and shakey but it's the best the creationists have come up with so far.

John Cross "This is essentially Svensmarks's idea (and Shiv before him). The problem is that the ideas don't fit well with observations."

It's extremely tenative and shakey but it's the better than most of the conspiracy theory based objections that the creationis... err skeptics have come up with so far.

You must remember folks that most of these dipper idiots are depending upon the myth of AGW to provide them with a lucrative income without really having to work for it. How many of these morons are working in or are studying for a career in the environment? How many of them are hoping to make money trading offsets? With the exception of the true hippies(minimalists, the only leftists I respect)the rest are profitable wannabe socialists hoping to cash in on this fraud. Ignore them and they will go away.

Jose: It does have the advantage of having a theoretical base (even if it doesn't match observations).

Best,
John

Hey wasnt it cosmic rays that created the FANTASIC FOUR?

Jose...I think you mis-used the term "creationist" That would be Al Gore,Fruitfly, etc. They seem to think GW started around the industrial period. Wonder what the Vikings living and farming on Greenland about 1000 years ago would think about that.Oh. And just how did the natives get here 40,000 years ago during the ice age without that land bridge across the Bearing Sea?
You want to stop GW Jose? Quit spewing your crap here. Now. Go back away from Mommie's refrigator and go back under your bridge. And take Alby with you.

Save Al Gore
http://www.junkscience.com/

"Posted by: kingstonlad at September 3, 2007 8:37 AM"

As with most posts here this is just another case of, "too ignorant ague the science so the only thing left is to attack the person".

->Ummmmm...lets have a look..21 cat 5's since 1928.And oh my...the second one in 2 weeks!!! It's nature Alby.Get used to it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes
Or do you figure you can change it?
Posted by: Justthinkin at September 3, 2007 3:54 AM

Justthinkin, once again you make this too easy. Think some more and look at the frequency of Cat 5 storms. The fact is there have been 31 of these storms since 1928, not 21. The number is interesting when you consider out of those 79 years one third of all Cat 5 storms have occurred since 1992. If that isn’t significant enough for you consider that 26% of all Cat 5 storms ever recorded have occurred since 2002. One year of multiple storms is not evidence of global warming, but when you look at the record that is starting to emerge we can begin to see a definite trend.
Can we change it? No the CO2 is already in the atmosphere. It’s no longer a question of stopping it, the question now is if we can stop it from getting any worse.

"Posted by: spurwing plover at September 3, 2007 10:20 AM"

Are you sure that's not Buck Rogers and his sonic rays?

http://www.toyraygun.com/boxart/sonicraybox.html

Albatros:
Most Cat 5 storms have been measured since we (well, the US weather guys) have been sending hurricane hunter aircraft to investigate. It also helps when there are weather satellites overhead. How did we measure the 1900 Galveston storm? If I remember correctly, it came ashore as a Cat 3, which probably means it was a 4 or 5 out in the Gulf.

I see Mr. albatros "Sterilize Africa" 99 is back to be hateful again.

You sir are not just a measly troll, you a potential camp guard. Return to your bridge.

The reason there seems to be more canes now ---- The Weather Network and The Weather Channel fear-monger 24/7. Before satillites, radar, hurricane hunters, ect we didn't even know some were out there until they came ashore or some ship was dinged.

Many were missed in the count --- now all are accounted for and the 'weather fear-mongers' show them over and over again --- all day, all night Mari-Ann, down by the sea ......

"The Weather Network and The Weather Channel"? Wow, you need more credible sources than that.

Funny thing about hurricanes is they all form in the same region of the Atlantic. So guess what, it's not hard to find and track them, even without satellites. From 1927 up until satellites took over in the 1960s weather ships along with naval ships and many merchant ships collected data on oceanic weather. Very few, if any hurricanes went undetected in the last three quarters of the twentieth century.

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1928/index.html Pretty detailed for not using satellites, isn’t it?

The problem is (was) that ships try to steer clear of hurricanes, hence the underreporting of intense hurricanes prior to satellites/C130's.

There is insufficient long term history of hurricane intensity to use them to prove or disprove AGW.

CAVID SUZUKI,AL GORE,JAMES LOVELOCK,CARL SAGAN,RICHARD DAWKINS and their all the biggist bunch of fruads and crack-pots who call themelves scientists but their not

"their not"

There are about twice as many PhDs in your list as there are in the entire Conservative Party of Canada. I'm very surprised you left out Noam Chomsky.

PhD --- Piled higher and Deeper

"The problem is (was) that ships try to steer clear of hurricanes...

Posted by: RicardoVerde at September 3, 2007 2:29 PM"

Ok fine, let pretend people prior to satellites were ignorant primate who knew absolutely nothing about weather. When we look at it this way the stats get even worse. The first weather satellite was launched in 1960, but lets use Wikies base year of 1966 for accurate satellite data. Of the 41 years of satellite data since 1966 there have been 18 Cat 5 storms, with two of those occurring in the past two weeks. In those 41 years, 50% of those storms have occurred in the past nine years.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007072925417.html

"PhD --- Piled higher and Deeper

Posted by: ron in kelowna at September 3, 2007 3:21 PM"

Those are the words of somebody who knows they are incapable of attaining such a thing.

No reason to pretend about anything. Prior to satellites & weather aircraft we really had no way to know the intensity of storms. Yes, you can infer things about the storms from several ships if they happen to be in the area and report their findings, but they generally do try to steer away. The reports would be hit or miss anyway, at least compared to today.

The 60's and 70's were cooler than normal in the North Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico so I'd agree that there are more now than there were then, but compared to the teens, 20's, 30's? The answer is we just don't know, so you can't really say with any confidence that there are more today.

“All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.” Dr. Chris Landsea http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu

As I understand him, Dr. Landsea agrees that AGW exists, but doesn't like stating the case for AGW beyond where the science leads.

Hi Roland

I think "The Sound of Settled Science" was a Simon and Garfunkel song, written and performed by two very talented Hebrew boys from New York.

It would be interesting to know if he still stands by those words, which he penned on the 17th January 2005. The following hurricane season spawned four cat 5 storms in that year alone including Katrina and a further two this year so far with three months to go. Prior to his letter there were signs of increased tropical cyclones, but nothing conclusive.
The web site I posted above http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov disagrees with Dr. Landsea's now outdated letter and if you do a search of “hurricane frequency” you'll find Earth Observatory isn't alone.
There is still nothing conclusive pointing to global warming as the cause, but there are definite signs suggesting intensity and frequency of hurricanes are on the increase.

I think I can say with great certainty that Albatros39a doesn't play craps. You should supplement your environmental studies with a course in statistics.

If I can add an excellent article on hurricanes and global warming to the mix. Dr. Curry really impressed me when she went on Climate Audit and she did quite well there and defended her position very well.

JOhn

You're a god damn genius kate.

Don't worry, be happy.

[For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.] Bjorn Lomborg

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver

Tell me. If anything, which one should Canadians be worried about. Warming or cooling ?

In many parts of Canada the average, year round temp is only 3 to 9 degrees C. Not much above freezing.

Many other countries are in the 18 to 25 degree range.

If the Gore is right (which he certainly is NOT) and Canada warms up to an average of 3.5 to 9.5 a hundred years from now, would it be so bad ??

There are not a hell of a lot of other counties colder than us. There are many, many a hell of a lot warmer than us ---- and they are doing just fine, thank-you.

If any country should not worry about a little more warmth it is C-A-N-A-D-A.

So who, anyways, would like to go along with fanatics, Dion and Maurice Strong, in not letting Canadians have a little bit more warmth ?? And destroy our lifestyles trying to do the impossible anyways !!??

If you are prone to worry for the sake of worring, try this.

In another 400 generations or so, our children's children's children's .................. children will be living under a kilometer of ice. It happens regularily and will happen again.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5587615
"The concern is that the data is so unreliable," Landsea says, "that this doubling in the number of category fours and fives may just be an artifact of monitoring things better."
Landsea says the problem is that before about 1990, satellite images were far less precise. And so were the techniques to analyze them.

Illness kills a lot of people to hell with the weather.

Felix is downgraded to category 4

personally, I hope the world does warm a few degrees. I would an economic boom for Canada, And I won't have to shovel any more F$#&ing snow. Hurry up already, winters coming again!

The science is settled I think.

Dr Peter Cowell, from the School of Geosciences at Sydney University, has looked closely at cartography and the impact of climate change on coastlines, and amongst other observations, has decided that;

Clip/ The Bangladesh coastline has had to be redrawn as more land and islands are lost to the sea, while the lowest country in the world, the Pacific nation of Tuvalu, is now only five metres above sea level. \end

Towards the end of the interview he completely loses his place in the AGW script and goes on to say:

Clip/ "Clearly, it's political and it involves things like Kyoto and other international agreements.
"The reality of it is that climate is going to change and is changing, and environmental change is occurring as well.
"It's not all necessarily as grim as Tuvalu indicates. Tuvalu has probably never been much more than five metres above sea level, whatever the sea level has been in the last centuries.
"So in some cases it is not as bad as it looks although it might get worse. \end

You can read the full report here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/04/2023128.htm

Did his AGW mask shrink in the wash, or does he just make it up as he goes along?

Someone their liberal left-wing news media claim is a scientists might acuialy be a lawn care specialists in fact dooms day over populationists PAUL EHRLICH was aciualy a bug specialists and his over population mantra proves he is out of his mind he should have stuck to studying the things i eats SQUAWK SQUAWK and the butterflies are more inlennegent then him SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

Re. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006949.html#comments

Eric at September 3, 2007 10:58 AM

Eric

I appreciate your attempt at explaining the science, but I'm afraid there's some holes in the argument. If indeed particles can form in this fashion, what is so special about these particular particles as compared with the other billions of tones of particulate matter floating around the earth's atmosphere at any given time?

HEY LETS GO THROUGH THE GALACTIC BARRIER AND SEE WHAT ITS LIKE SQUAWK SQUAWK