Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

The recent main-stream media frenzy over the 'cosmic ray theory of
climate change' has shown no sign of abating. For wing-nuts the world
over it is proof-positive that AGW is one giant hoax; human activity
isn't mainly responsible for recent climate change and the IPCC is
part of a huge conspiracy that ignores non-conforming science etcetera
etcetera.

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

A new paper by Evan et al. in Geophysical Research Letters may well be
the final nail in the coffin for cosmic ray-induced climate change.
Central to the theory are data from the International Satellite Cloud
Climatology Project (ISCCP) showing that cloud levels have decreased
by up to 4% over the past 20 years. Decreased low-level cloud cover
due to decreased cloud-nucleating cosmic rays is proposed to lead to
warming. However, for some time it has been noted that a portion of
ISCCP data did not match surface-based observations, and that low-
level cloud cover may not have actually reduced in recent times.

When Evan and team investigated the ISCCP D2 data set they found that
cloud-cover almost immediately dropped when satellites were moved and
the angle at which they observed cloud-cover was reduced. The reason
for this is that as more weather satellites were put into orbit, each
satellite had a smaller area to observe and could look directly down
through the cloud layer, rather than covering a larger area where the
edges are observed at an increased angle. The latter, more direct
observations made it appear as though there was less cloud when, in
fact, cloud-cover hadn't changed. The data appeared to contain
observational artefacts that weren't corrected for before use in other
studies.

The paper's concluding paragraph is devastating:

We have demonstrated that the long-term global trends in cloudiness
from the ISCCP record are influenced by artefacts associated with
satellite viewing geometry. Results from earlier studies based on
these trends may be influenced by these non-physical artefacts,
and we therefore suggest that development of a correction for the
data is warranted. As the number of publications on the subject of
climate change continues to grow [Stanhill, 2001], this paper
highlights
the need to critically explore the source of any trends in global,
multi-decadal satellite data sets.

Evan's work has yet to be reproduced and the exact extent to which the
change in observation area has artificially changed cloud-cover over
the past 20 years quantified. Still, things are looking decidedly grim
for cosmic ray-induced climate change, which will probably end up in
the dust-bin with the similarly artefact-ridden 'troposphere isn't
warming' theory.

Will this stop the crazies harping on about it?

Not a chance.

For the highlighted links cited by this article, please see:
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/i...smic-rays.html

On Mar 11, 3:58 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:

Evan's work has yet to be reproduced
doom and gloom snipped

Of course not.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

The recent main-stream media frenzy over the 'cosmic ray theory of
climate change' has shown no sign of abating. For wing-nuts the world
over it is proof-positive that AGW is one giant hoax; human activity
isn't mainly responsible for recent climate change and the IPCC is
part of a huge conspiracy that ignores non-conforming science etcetera
etcetera.

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

Seems to me that this is the problem on both sides of the isle.

On Mar 11, 12:57 pm, "birdog" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

oups.com...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

The recent main-stream media frenzy over the 'cosmic ray theory of
climate change' has shown no sign of abating. For wing-nuts the world
over it is proof-positive that AGW is one giant hoax; human activity
isn't mainly responsible for recent climate change and the IPCC is
part of a huge conspiracy that ignores non-conforming science etcetera
etcetera.

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

Seems to me that this is the problem on both sides of the isle.

Reichturds Cosmic Rayguns explanation sounds like a joke to most
people -- it backfires and toasts them. Really! Invoking Ming the
Emperor is trying just a little bit too hard to sweep under the rug
what people do see with their own eyes.

On Mar 11, 12:57 pm, "birdog" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

oups.com...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays


Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

Seems to me that this is the problem on both sides of the isle.

Then tell CERN to stop their CLOUD experiments: http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

Roger you have your head "in the clouds" over the galectic particle
and cloud research.

RL

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

The recent main-stream media frenzy over the 'cosmic ray theory of
climate change' has shown no sign of abating. For wing-nuts the world
over it is proof-positive that AGW is one giant hoax; human activity
isn't mainly responsible for recent climate change and the IPCC is
part of a huge conspiracy that ignores non-conforming science etcetera
etcetera.

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

A new paper by Evan et al. in Geophysical Research Letters may well be
the final nail in the coffin for cosmic ray-induced climate change.
Central to the theory are data from the International Satellite Cloud
Climatology Project (ISCCP) showing that cloud levels have decreased
by up to 4% over the past 20 years. Decreased low-level cloud cover
due to decreased cloud-nucleating cosmic rays is proposed to lead to
warming. However, for some time it has been noted that a portion of
ISCCP data did not match surface-based observations, and that low-
level cloud cover may not have actually reduced in recent times.

When Evan and team investigated the ISCCP D2 data set they found that
cloud-cover almost immediately dropped when satellites were moved and
the angle at which they observed cloud-cover was reduced. The reason
for this is that as more weather satellites were put into orbit, each
satellite had a smaller area to observe and could look directly down
through the cloud layer, rather than covering a larger area where the
edges are observed at an increased angle. The latter, more direct
observations made it appear as though there was less cloud when, in
fact, cloud-cover hadn't changed. The data appeared to contain
observational artefacts that weren't corrected for before use in other
studies.

The paper's concluding paragraph is devastating:

We have demonstrated that the long-term global trends in cloudiness
from the ISCCP record are influenced by artefacts associated with
satellite viewing geometry. Results from earlier studies based on
these trends may be influenced by these non-physical artefacts,
and we therefore suggest that development of a correction for the
data is warranted. As the number of publications on the subject of
climate change continues to grow [Stanhill, 2001], this paper
highlights
the need to critically explore the source of any trends in global,
multi-decadal satellite data sets.

Evan's work has yet to be reproduced and the exact extent to which the
change in observation area has artificially changed cloud-cover over
the past 20 years quantified. Still, things are looking decidedly grim
for cosmic ray-induced climate change, which will probably end up in
the dust-bin with the similarly artefact-ridden 'troposphere isn't
warming' theory.

Will this stop the crazies harping on about it?

Not a chance.

For the highlighted links cited by this article, please see:
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/i...smic-rays.html

Is this a blog on a 2001 report? That's too old even by your standards. LOL
Give us a cite.

On Mar 11, 2:52 pm, "raylopez99" wrote:
On Mar 11, 12:57 pm, "birdog" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

roups.com...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

Seems to me that this is the problem on both sides of the isle.

Then tell CERN to stop their CLOUD experiments: http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

Roger you have your head "in the clouds" over the galectic particle
and cloud research.

RL

Really now! Ming the Emperor and Cosmic Ray-Guns causing the warming?
You Exxon Lick-a-Dicks are earning your whore's pay for whoppers like
that, NOT!

Ray Lopez Lies! Karl Rove's Bumboy wrote:

On Mar 11, 12:57 pm, "birdog" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

oups.com...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

The recent main-stream media frenzy over the 'cosmic ray theory of
climate change' has shown no sign of abating. For wing-nuts the world
over it is proof-positive that AGW is one giant hoax; human activity
isn't mainly responsible for recent climate change and the IPCC is
part of a huge conspiracy that ignores non-conforming science etcetera
etcetera.

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

Seems to me that this is the problem on both sides of the isle.

Reichturds Cosmic Rayguns explanation sounds like a joke to most
people -- it backfires and toasts them. Really! Invoking Ming the
Emperor is trying just a little bit too hard to sweep under the rug
what people do see with their own eyes.

Clytus, I'm bored. What plaything can you offer me today?

--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk

If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?

On Mar 11, 12:58 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

The recent main-stream media frenzy over the 'cosmic ray theory of
climate change' has shown no sign of abating. For wing-nuts the world
over it is proof-positive that AGW is one giant hoax; human activity
isn't mainly responsible for recent climate change and the IPCC is
part of a huge conspiracy that ignores non-conforming science etcetera
etcetera.

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

A new paper by Evan et al. in Geophysical Research Letters may well be
the final nail in the coffin for cosmic ray-induced climate change.
Central to the theory are data from the International Satellite Cloud
Climatology Project (ISCCP) showing that cloud levels have decreased
by up to 4% over the past 20 years. Decreased low-level cloud cover
due to decreased cloud-nucleating cosmic rays is proposed to lead to
warming. However, for some time it has been noted that a portion of
ISCCP data did not match surface-based observations, and that low-
level cloud cover may not have actually reduced in recent times.

When Evan and team investigated the ISCCP D2 data set they found that
cloud-cover almost immediately dropped when satellites were moved and
the angle at which they observed cloud-cover was reduced. The reason
for this is that as more weather satellites were put into orbit, each
satellite had a smaller area to observe and could look directly down
through the cloud layer, rather than covering a larger area where the
edges are observed at an increased angle. The latter, more direct
observations made it appear as though there was less cloud when, in
fact, cloud-cover hadn't changed. The data appeared to contain
observational artefacts that weren't corrected for before use in other
studies.

The paper's concluding paragraph is devastating:

We have demonstrated that the long-term global trends in cloudiness
from the ISCCP record are influenced by artefacts associated with
satellite viewing geometry. Results from earlier studies based on
these trends may be influenced by these non-physical artefacts,
and we therefore suggest that development of a correction for the
data is warranted. As the number of publications on the subject of
climate change continues to grow [Stanhill, 2001], this paper
highlights
the need to critically explore the source of any trends in global,
multi-decadal satellite data sets.

Evan's work has yet to be reproduced and the exact extent to which the
change in observation area has artificially changed cloud-cover over
the past 20 years quantified. Still, things are looking decidedly grim
for cosmic ray-induced climate change, which will probably end up in
the dust-bin with the similarly artefact-ridden 'troposphere isn't
warming' theory.

(cut)

That just means the data used were unreliable, like Mann's data,
not that the cosmic ray hypothesis was disproved. Palle et al used
"earthshine" to measure our
albedo, and implicity, cloud cover.

http://www.bbso.njit.edu/~epb/reprin...l_GRL_2005.pdf

"... Earth's albedo changes over the past two decades have been
larger than previously suspected, with a significant decline from the
mid 1980s to 2000. These decadal changes in reflectance are
climatologically significant and derive mainly from changes in cloud
properties."

The death of the Cosmic Ray hypothesis is wishful thinking on your
part- A. McIntire

On Mar 11, 4:39 pm, (Peter B. P.) wrote:
Ray Lopez Lies! Karl Rove's Bumboy wrote:



On Mar 11, 12:57 pm, "birdog" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

roups.com...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

It's curtains for cosmic rays

The recent main-stream media frenzy over the 'cosmic ray theory of
climate change' has shown no sign of abating. For wing-nuts the world
over it is proof-positive that AGW is one giant hoax; human activity
isn't mainly responsible for recent climate change and the IPCC is
part of a huge conspiracy that ignores non-conforming science etcetera
etcetera.

Unfortunately for cosmic-rayers, the more the studies backing the
theory are investigated, the more problems with data sets and
experimental methodology that pop up.

Seems to me that this is the problem on both sides of the isle.

Reichturds Cosmic Rayguns explanation sounds like a joke to most
people -- it backfires and toasts them. Really! Invoking Ming the
Emperor is trying just a little bit too hard to sweep under the rug
what people do see with their own eyes.

Clytus, I'm bored. What plaything can you offer me today?

Ming the Emperor's COSMIC RAY-GUNS, heating Mars and Earth from Hollow
Moonbase -- you Reichwingers are making jokes, right Reichy? A joke?
You're NOT Serious? Are You?

http://www.rense.com/general20/eisenhowerWH.htm
March 1960 - The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a
celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long
ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer,
special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No
mention was made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.

In his published opinion, Dr. Singer backed a claim first made by the
Soviet astrophysicist Shklovsky. The Russian scientist's announcement
that Phobos was a hollow, artificial satellite, proving the existence
of a Martian civilization, set off heated arguments among astronomers.
Shklovsky based his decision on a long study of Phobos' peculiar
orbit, which other astronomers have noted. The Russian claim has
calculations and those of earlier astronomers prove Phobos cannot
possibly be an ordinary moon.

Though Dr. Singer said the figures still had to be proved, his Phobos
statement in the February Astronautics, rejected other astronomers'
objections.

"I would be very disappointed if it turns out to be solid," said the
White House advisor. If the figures were correct, he stated, then
Phobos undoubtedly is a hollow, artificial satellite. If it is, he
said, its purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in the Mars'
atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet.
Dr. Singer also pointed out that Phobos would make an ideal space
base, both for Martians and earthlings.

http://www.presidentialufo.com/eisenhow5.htm

Mars May have Orbiting Space Base, says White House Advisor

March 1960: The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial
body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an
advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special
advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No mention was
made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.

In his published opinion, Dr. Singer backed a claim first made by the
Soviet astrophysicist Shklovsky. The Russian scientist's announcement
that Phobos was a hollow, artificial satellite, proving the existence
of a Martian civilization, set off heated arguments among astronomers.
Shklovsky based his decision on a long study of Phobos' peculiar
orbit, which other astronomers have noted. The Russian claim has
calculations and those of earlier astronomers prove Phobos cannot
possibly be an ordinary moon.

Though Dr. Singer said the figures still had to be proved, his Phobos
statement in the February Astronautics, rejected other astronomers'
objections.

"I would be very disappointed if it turns out to be solid," said the
white House advisor. If the figures were correct, he stated, then
Phobos undoubtedly is a hollow, artificial satellite. If it is, he
said, its purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in the Mars'
atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet.
Dr. Singer also pointed out that Phobos would make an ideal space
base, both for Martians and earthlings.