Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: Who is SSRC? And what is Relational Cycle Theory?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,021

    Who is SSRC? And what is Relational Cycle Theory?

    http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html

    The Space and Science Research Center, Orlando, FL. They have a press release about a study claiming that Earth is heading for a cold spell due to the next solar cycle. Andre cited them in a post under Astronomy. I came here after seeing a reference to it on a skiing forum, where of course readers hope for colder winters. But from their website, the outfit sounds like one of those single issue think tanks, promoting the theory they call "Relational Climatology".

    The qualifications of Mr. John L. Casey remind me of others we've seen trying to claim "expert" status - A ** in math and physics, a Master's in management, and 30 years of experience stated only vaguely. A google search for John L. Casey only turns up a microbiologist at Georgetown. Furthermore if they have a staff of top experts I would expect to see names and resumes on the site. There isn't much on the website but a picture of a nice office building and the press release.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    I think you've applied the appropriate critical thinking and background research to the whole matter, and would pay it no further attention.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    628
    I am a “man made global warming” skeptic and I had never heard of John L. Casey until your post. I think you have the guy figured out; see:
    http://junkscience.com/blog/2008/01/...h-center-hoax/
    Anyone using a name of The Space and Science Research Center needs to be criminally investigated; well anyone except NASA or ESA.
    What Casey is doing is taking information from NASA’s Dr. David Hathaway about solar cycle 25 being off the chart to the low side and connecting it to the lack of solar activity in 1645 called the Maunder Minimum which has been related to the mini Ice Age of that time. Also low solar activity has been tied to the Spörer, Dalton and Wolf minimums which seemed to cause colder weather.
    If you Google “david hathaway” +”cycle 25” you will find what he is saying about the solar cycle. I have never seen Hathaway tie solar cycles to weather.
    Hathaway and others are predicting high solar activity in cycle 24 which we are just starting. Many people are predicting doomsday scenarios in the 2012 time frame. What these people don’t seem to understand is we have been in a period of high solar activity for the past 20 years, and 2012 is only slightly higher.
    I do believe we (the earth) will see a cold spell from 2020 that will last 50 to 75 years.

    Jim

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    A most excellent example of groupthink. Couldn't be better:

    ...Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. ...

    4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
    So here comes **fill in your own choice of the worst villain ever in here**, claiming that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius / 32 F. So of course he is wrong since he is **fill in the same worst villain ever in here**.

    So when is it going to be science talk again? In which, surprisingly enough, appears to be some substantiation for attributing warmth to the sun. For instance:

    http://www.spacecenter.dk/publicatio...ient_No._3.pdf
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....globalwarming
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0731080631.htm
    http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/s...smoclimatology
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111175828.htm
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313966,00.html
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0212184713.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023193345.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0926070112.htm
    http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...4068db11f4&p=4
    http://www.nature.com/news/2000/0012...s001207-6.html
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1001100950.htm
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20071211a.html
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/su...mperature.html
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801174450.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210164606.htm
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib.../sorce_04.html

    So, it's probably going to be increasingly tough to demonize all those people talking sun and spread the rumor that they may occasional fill up the gas tank at EXXON.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,784
    You're not helping Andre.
    None off that has anything to do with the claims made by Casey. He's just a nutter.

    And yes, you should use your bicycle more often. It's good for your health.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    Trying to help. Just demonstrating that with groupthink you can promote anything to the truth by shooting the messengers / myth busters.

    Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.
    Then I suppose it has not occurred to you that this is precisely what you just did. Your "groupthink" says that "any time a nutter is identified as a nutter, as in the OP, if they are also a global warming skeptic, then they are being judged by groupthink, rather than by the very obvious evidence that they are a nutter". That's the trouble with logic-- it's a double-edged sword.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    Trying to help. Just demonstrating that with groupthink you can promote anything to the truth by shooting the messengers / myth busters.

    Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.
    Go back and reread my post #3, then ask yourself; what am I saying that is any different than Casey. MAPNUT, Ken and I are only questioning why Casey needs to call himself The Space and Science Research Center and use an address that is simply a mail stop if he is legit.

    Since you appear to be promoting him you should take the time to check him out. YOU NEED TO THINK.

    Jim

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    13,423
    It's ok Andre

    We still love ya. A little bit. Mostly.


    Kind of ummm... Like a brother you know?

    Not romantically.



    I mean like... you know like a man loves his dog or something...

    No wait...

    That didn't come out right at all!...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    I still suggest that shooting the message should happen, before shooting the messenger. Only then you could ask if he was mistaking or lying. My list proved that at least there was some substantiation to tying climate to solar solar cycles. Therefore the credentials of the messenger are irrelevant. Actually could it be that the global warming tyranny has generated "nutters"?

    I guess it all boils down to believing the logic. The problem here is that the studies, which are refuting strong effects of greenhouse gasses on global temperature, are published with an ever increasing rate. For instance:

    http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/EE2007-ok.pdf

    which is not on this listing:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

    Now of course you can routinely spout your vitriol on the messenger and dismiss the 400, but he is only showing what is publisehed peer reviewed. And BTW, for the warmers, how much more years of not warming more than previous, are required to realize that there might be some problems with the IPCC stance?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    I still suggest that shooting the message should happen, before shooting the messenger.
    You wouldn't make much of a trial lawyer with that view. It sounds nice, but in the real world, we have "messengers" all over the map with all kinds of crazy views, and it is an essential part of the analysis to include the reliability of the messenger in the deliberations.
    Only then you could ask if he was mistaking or lying.
    That's like saying, you first have to figure out if what the witness is saying really happened, and use that to assess the reliability of the witness. But we are forming an impression of what happened, and using the reliability of the various witnesses is a very central element in that process, just as it is in a courtroom.
    My list proved that at least there was some substantiation to tying climate to solar solar cycles.
    None of which had anything to do with the OP, as has already been pointed out.
    Therefore the credentials of the messenger are irrelevant.
    Again, that statement is simply absurd.
    Actually could it be that the global warming tyranny has generated "nutters"?
    The "global warming tyranny", now there's a solid argument in favor of your position. Argument by labeling.
    Now of course you can routinely spout your vitriol on the messenger and dismiss the 400, but he is only showing what is publisehed peer reviewed.
    "Vitriol"-- more argument by labeling. If you really had a leg to stand on, you would be a scientist, not a rhetoricist. If you believe that lists of citations constitutes an argument, then I suppose someone will just have to post the thousands of citations that refute your position. Of course, you'll just say that citations that dispute your conclusions are the "tyranny", so the more there are, the more it establishes your position. Convenient, that-- citation lists are only admissable in support of your opinion.
    And BTW, for the warmers, how much more years of not warming more than previous, are required to realize that there might be some problems with the IPCC stance?
    We'd all love to cross that bridge if we come to it, believe me.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    Trying to help. Just demonstrating that with groupthink you can promote anything to the truth by shooting the messengers / myth busters.

    Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.
    But by posting all those links, some to articles in mainstream journals, you have disproven your own point - no one is shooting the messengers of alternative theories to AGW.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    I have to admit that a lot of that paper was over my head. But I found one thing interesting. From the abstract:
    Long daily surface air temperature series from 24 European and Asian stations are analyzed,
    and from the conclusions:
    Time series analysis results on the basis of 24 long temperature series from various European and Asian stations do not support the IPCC conclusion about the dominant role of positive feedback
    One of the frequent criticisms I've seen about AGW and IPCC data analysis is that they used a distorted or too small data set. So, this study, disagreeing with their conclusions, uses a data set from only 24 stations on one landmass!
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I have to admit that a lot of that paper was over my head. But I found one thing interesting. From the abstract:

    and from the conclusions:

    One of the frequent criticisms I've seen about AGW and IPCC data analysis is that they used a distorted or too small data set. So, this study, disagreeing with their conclusions, uses a data set from only 24 stations on one landmass!
    Now how many times is it needed to freeze water to determine that it happens at 0C/32F? Certainly more than once, as long as we don't accept it as a physical law that under the same atmospheric conditions it will always freeze at the same temperature.

    What Olavi does, is trying to establish the feedback behavior of the atmosphere in general, not to measure as many trends as possible. The IPCC stance requires a positive feedback to be able to boost the assumed 1.2 degrees sensitivity to CO2 doubling to the 2.5 -4.5 degrees or something like that, required to justify the scaremongering.

    Positive feedback means that something is pushing the temp out of equilibrium (persistency) while negative feedback would resist leaving that equilibrium, so the random one dimensional walk would have to show up with persistency to proof that positive feedback or resistancy to refute it.

    In his first two papers he investigated the satellite temperature series
    http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
    http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

    But there where issues with these data, one of them that less than 30 years doesn't resemble climate, so he decided to use the longest temperature series available this time. And the outcome every time was resistancy - negative feedback.

    So, he did the equivalent of doing three series of measurements the last one with 28 samples to see if water freezes at 0C/32F everytime.

    But by all means, highly encouraged, do challenge him, ask his method, get your own station series and replicate the experiment. (Edit: I know he would love to see that happen)

    Again if there is no positive feedback there is no catastrophic global warming coming up. That's logic. Logic of which it doesn't matter if it is brought by Kärner, me, or Joseph Stalin or whoever is the worst enemy of mankind.
    Last edited by Andre; 2008-Jan-09 at 03:47 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    Now how many times is it needed to freeze water to determine that it happens at 0C/32F? Certainly more than once, as long as we don't accept it as a physical law that under the same atmospheric conditions it will always freeze at the same temperature.

    What Olavi does, is trying to establish the feedback behavior of the atmosphere in general, not to measure as many trends as possible. The IPCC stance requires a positive feedback to be able to boost the assumed 1.2 degrees sensitivity to CO2 doubling to the 2.5 -4.5 degrees or something like that, required to justify the scaremongering.

    Positive feedback means that something is pushing the temp out of equilibrium (persistency) while negative feedback would resist leaving that equilibrium, so the random one dimensional walk would have to show up with persistency to proof that positive feedback or resistancy to refute it.

    In his first two papers he investigated the satellite temperature series
    http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
    http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf
    ...
    I took the time to read Olavi Karner’s papers on the negative feedback in the earths climate system. They are interesting, nothing really new, but I don’t see any major flaws except what Swift pointed out (only one land mass used). All and all I would expect to see a strong solar cycle to temperature correlation, and that is what he is showing.

    Now that I agree with Karner’s papers does this mean Casey must be legit? Does this mean it makes perfect sense for one man to take on the name of The Space and Science Research Center and use a mail stop in Orlando FL as the location?

    The message is OK so all messengers must be OK too? That is the logic you are suggesting.

    This thread was about Casey and the Space and Science Research Center. Then you entered the scene accusing me, MAPNUT and Ken G of groupthink and all you want to do now is change the subject or focus of the thread.

    You remind me of the Southwest Airlines commercials “Want to Get Away?”.

    I think you owe MAPNUT, Ken G and me an apology, it is you who's using groupthink or “No Think” logic.

    Jim

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    No the big problem I see here is the ad hominem logic:

    The man is a crook,........

    The Space and Science Research Center, Orlando, FL. They have a press release about a study claiming that Earth is heading for a cold spell due to the next solar cycle. Andre cited them in a post under Astronomy. I came here after seeing a reference to it on a skiing forum, where of course readers hope for colder winters. But from their website, the outfit sounds like one of those single issue think tanks, promoting the theory they call "Relational Climatology".

    The qualifications of Mr. John L. Casey remind me of others we've seen trying to claim "expert" status - A ** in math and physics, a Master's in management, and 30 years of experience stated only vaguely. A google search for John L. Casey only turns up a microbiologist at Georgetown. Furthermore if they have a staff of top experts I would expect to see names and resumes on the site. There isn't much on the website but a picture of a nice office building and the press release.
    ................THEREFORE he is wrong:

    I think you've applied the appropriate critical thinking and background research to the whole matter, and would pay it no further attention.
    But what if he said that water freezes at 0C/32F?

    Ad hominems and demonisation of the opponent are amongst the central issues in groupthink according to Janis:

    ...Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. ...
    All that Casey did is pass the message of predictions of a cold spell due to a solar minimum, so he got turned inside out to demonstrate that he is wrong. So since he is a crook there will not be a cold spell. Just trying to expose the logic.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,030
    Andre,

    You seem "focused" on groupthink. Do you think that BAUT is an example of groupthink?
    ...Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. ...
    If you think the group of BAUT members is of one mind, that ignores alternatives, well, I think you haven't read enough of it. There are members with a wide variety of beliefs here, even on the topic of climate change.

    If your groupthink comments are towards the wider, scientific community, then please address my point in post # 12.

    And your analogy to the measurement of the freezing point of water is far too simplistic, compared to the issues of climate change.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    The main issue I see here is global warming, dismissing the possibility that a Sporer - Dalton type of solar minimum would not affect the climate significantly. So if I happen to use a less appropriate link to a person who merely conveys a message of others, he is demonized within hours. He is a crook, so he is wrong. I resent that. Science is not about shooting messengers, Groupthink is about shooting messengers. The message stands unless somebody substantiates why a Dalton type minimum would not affect the climate significantly.

    And if you tick of the eight symtoms of groupthink against the structure of the global warming scaremongering, you would immediately nominate Irving Janis for the Nobel prize. Hair raising. Never have I seen such an extreme accurate analyzis/prediction in any non-exact science.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    No the big problem I see here is the ad hominem logic:

    The man is a crook,........
    No Andre the problem here is not ad hominem logic, the problem is YOU are not taking the time to read and understand what people are writing. Nobody on this thread has said that the possibility of a period of global cooling won’t or could not happen. What you call the message or global cooling is not an issue. The whole issue is John L. Casey taking on the name of The Space Science Research Center, and setting up a mail drop address in Orlando FL. You need to spend time studying this guy’s background before jumping on his bandwagon. There are many ligament people advocating a cooling period coming with solar cycle 25, but for reasons stated Casey isn’t one of them. It’s not the message it is the messenger.

    Jim

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    How about taking the time to read yourself? We not talking about solar cycle 25 but cycle 24. Again you still don't see the difference between:

    Al Gore says (hypothetically) that cycle 24 is getting us pretty cool weather or
    Stalin (avoiding Godwins law) says that cycle 24 is getting is pretty cool weather.

    And for what it's worth I know a lot of very decent people who predict that cold spell and you seeing a lot of "ligament people advocating a cooling period" demonstrates the creepy effectiveness of the demonization campaign of the global warming groupthink

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,030
    By the way, as counters to the idea that the current climate change is caused by the sun, I offer this graph, this article, and this one, and here.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    By the way, as counters to the idea that the current climate change is caused by the sun, I offer this graph, this article, and this one, and here.
    You have found the:

    Self-appointed ‘mindguards’
    Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
    We have just discussed the Kärner papers here, demonstrating that the vital positive feedback is lacking, meaning that even a strong possibly 100% correlation between CO2 and temperature still means that CO2 could not have caused all that warming, simply because the negative feedback ensures that the climate sensitivity must be less than the alleged basic 1.2 degrees per doubling CO2. Remember, it takes only one refutation to demostrate that the causility is not CO2.

    Another graph that suggest some correlation between solar activity and temperature:


  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,030
    Andre,
    I don't know if you mean it this way, but I find it insulting that you dismiss all counter-arguments as groupthink. Just because others come to different conclusions than you, doesn't mean that it was the result of some sort of false logic. If you want to debate science, then just debate it. Stop with the name calling.

    As far as your graph, what is the source of this graph? And how exactly is "temperature anomaly" defined. And how exactly is sunspot cycle length defined? I assume it is something like the number of years between minimums or maximums - how do they define that number to a specific year? Is that year the midpoint or one end of the cycle?

    I also notice that it ends at 1990. What does it look like if you extend it forward to 2008?

    I don't think anyone contends that CO2 is the only forcer of climate. I could believe that for the period before 1990 that the strongest forcer was solar cycle changes. Certainly, natural factors would be the most important before humans got into the act. But, what about since then?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    How about taking the time to read yourself? We not talking about solar cycle 25 but cycle 24.
    This is from Casey's website:
    As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower.


    Now you try reading!


    Jim

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    Sorry, the idea is not to insult but to open eyes. Equally insulting could be the adamantly refusal of that mindguard team to accept that there are more parameters for the sun than energy output alone (which hardly fluctuates) the solar wind and magnetic activicity could play a role. There are hypotheses about that, about which the evidence shows some consistency.

    So if you are insulted about the mindguard element. Think about this: How come that the Kärner papers are unknown to virtually everybody. Why is there no newpaper whatsoever shouting: "Climate Disaster Warded Off, whew, No positive feedback. Planet saved from impending disaster. Kärner saved us". Why not?



    About the graph, Perhaps it was made before the ending of cycle22. I don't know. It's late here. I'll be back on that.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    Sorry, the idea is not to insult but to open eyes. Equally insulting could be the adamantly refusal of that mindguard team to accept that there are more parameters for the sun than energy output alone (which hardly fluctuates) the solar wind and magnetic activicity could play a role. There are hypotheses about that, about which the evidence shows some consistency.
    Please explain a possible mechanism where by solar wind and magnetic activity have an effect on global temperatures on Earth. You say that energy output hardly fluctuates - wouldn't that energy output have the biggest impact? If that doesn't fluctuate, then how do these other solar factors have a bigger impact?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Please explain a possible mechanism where by solar wind and magnetic activity have an effect on global temperatures on Earth. You say that energy output hardly fluctuates - wouldn't that energy output have the biggest impact? If that doesn't fluctuate, then how do these other solar factors have a bigger impact?
    Paper by Henrik Svensmark studies the possible mechanism:
    http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Atraveller View Post
    Paper by Henrik Svensmark studies the possible mechanism:
    http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
    One counter argument about the cosmic ray theory


    Press release from the American Geophysical Union about the idea.
    Eleven Earth and space scientists say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology. Writing in the January 27 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and colleagues in Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States challenge the cosmic ray hypothesis.
    A British newspaper article about the research that Atraveller links to. Presents both sides of the discussion (so much for the "groupthinkers" suppressing discussion).

    I'll quote some of the counter argument:
    Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

    Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

    Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Andre, Swift and several others, could you please get back to the original discussion.

    We're not here to discuss whether global temperatures are related to solar cycles, we're discussing whether John L. Casey's Space and Science Research Center is a reliable source for information about this.

    To do this, arguments based on what he's saying about this won't work, since that would be arguing from the conclusion.

    So stop discussing temperature variations and solar cycles right now and get back to discussing John L. Casey.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Andre, Swift and several others, could you please get back to the original discussion.
    Sorry I did not see this post while working on the other. But I still don't understand why the message is dependent on the messenger. Perhaps it's possible to split up the thread or shall I start a new one on solar cycles.

Similar Threads

  1. 2012 sunspot cycle theory
    By silkyjla30 in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 2011-Jan-14, 09:22 PM
  2. SSRC Announces Global Warming Has Ended
    By orionjim in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-28, 11:42 PM
  3. The Next Solar Cycle is Nearly Upon Us
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-Jun-07, 02:06 AM
  4. question on cno cycle of sun
    By suntrack2 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-26, 09:29 AM
  5. Beyond relational databases
    By Argos in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-May-25, 04:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •