Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Clouds Come from Deep Space Too

dehammer wrote:
"we give you the identical stuff, plus stuff from university libraries, and you claim that is not good enough."

You've never once done so. I scanned the last three months of your posts here dehammer. Not once a science related reference and not once a reference from a university library.

(yes you've provided a few links but they were essentially worthless such as hoover.org)

Please demonstrate some integrity. Post a single "real" link that refutes the NASA work. Here ... refute this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061019162746.htm

DA Morgan
posted 10-22-2006 03:55 PM
I don't discuss topics ... I discuss science.

There are only two possibilities here dehammer.

1. You are incapable of finding links to actual research that supports your statements.

2. Actual research supporting your statements does not exist.

Which is it?


science daily is a news site. not a real link to hard data. show some integrity and either accept equal sites or dont bother posting it.

I wrote:
"There are only two possibilities here dehammer.

1. You are incapable of finding links to actual research that supports your statements.

2. Actual research supporting your statements does not exist."

You've answered the question haven't you. The only link you are capable of posting is mine. The sciencedaily website specific pointed to researchers which anyone not terminally lazy would have found using google in less than five seconds.

Like I said ... you've answered the question. I was really hoping you'd surprise me.

i posted links yet you refuse to discuss them because they dont support your arguement.

you post things that are of the same nature, yet you claim they are scientific.

Either ours are good enough for you to discuss, or yours are not good enough to discuss for us to discuss.

which is it.

dehammer wrote:
"posted links yet you refuse to discuss them because they dont support your arguement."

http://www.mickeymouse.com is a link and I would ignore it too.

Your links were not to science sites ... they were to political sites ... in other words ... Mickey Mouse.

Don't you know the difference?

Dan, please restrain yourself. I like the site but it is not appropriate.

Amaranth

the problem is that you dont know the difference.

there is no difference between the sites i posted, and the ones you site, save that they are on different sides of the issue. If they are good enough for you to use, they are good enough for us to use. if they are mickey mouse for us, they are mickey mouse for you.

which are they. are political opinions ok for both sides, or for neither?

it cant be both ok for you to use opinionated political orientated news articles and us to not us to use the same type. If its not ok for us to use opinionated political orientated news articles, its not ok for you either.

either accept ours, or stop posting yours. If you want to discuss pure science, give links to the hard, raw, unaltered data. If your going to discuss the political opinions of others, then our links political agendas are as acceptables as the ones from the links you provide.

now are we going to discuss science, or we going to discuss the political opinions. Personally, i really dont have any desire to discuss the political opinions of the articles that you post any more than you obiously dont want to discuss the political opinions of the ones i posted.

you constantly get on others for being a troll, so why not stop being one yourself.

dehammer wrote:
"the problem is that you dont know the difference."

Last time I checked I was the one with the BS degree who worked in the lab for 6 years and now teach at a major research university. I do know the difference.

If you think the Hoover Institute at Stanford is a valuable place to find information about science then this conversation is over.

Last word is yours.

translation for those who dont speak political speak

"im caught in a postion of accepting politial sites that are against my political leaning, or giving up linking to political sites of my leaning. since i cant do either, ill claim victory and hope no one noticed that i lost the arguement."

Regarding the original topic:
Has anyone looked at the field reversal record and glaciations to see if there is any match-up?

Been busy (kids, bills, TV) and just finished watching NOVA (PBS). They had examples from 16Mya geo. records of the Earth's magnetic field failing (80-90%) for up to 3000 yr.; shifting by 6 degrees/day (when stronger); the possibility of 4 or even 8 "poles" wandering, even near equatorial latitudes; and they did mention COSMIC RAYS would also increase during reversals. They even cited a figure of 15 extra cancer deaths/million. So I guess magnetic field does affect cosmic rays.
A lot of NOVA's info came from a multi-year supercomputer run of a model core, but the geo. data backed it up. I remember this on the cover of Nature a few years ago (Science too, I think).
Nice graphics; thanks NOVA

Enjoy,
~Sam

P.S. Tomorrow, PBS Secrets of the Dead, explores a VOLCANIC "nuclear winter" scenario; I think it might be TOBA, but maybe it's just generic.
~S

Yes , NOVA was great, I was waiting the whole show for them to at least mention the weather connection.

I wonder if there is some method to determine the suns long term magnetic field strength history?

Toba, is that the one 70,000 years ago that took the world population down to a few thousand?

More interesting grist for the Plasma/weather interactions:

Cluster makes turbulent breakthrough

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/7

Yes, Toba = 70Kya
~WRONG! TV show was:
Turned out to be Krakatoa ~535AD

~Sam

Here is a great blog analyzing the press release from the " league of Danish global warming deniers, aka the Danish Space Center"


http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/svensmark-stumbles-into-smog-chamber.html

so what your saying is that the experiments were not valid because the density was higher in the chamber than in the atmosphere. this despite the fact that the atomphere is several hundred times bigger and the over all radiation is several hundred times more than in the chamber.

a blog is written by anyone, so does that mean that anyone has a better understanding than the person that has a higher education in that area?

its a very common scientific practice to use a higher density chamber to simulate a larger area and to get the results faster. so does the fact that this blogger have a problem with that mean that we have do throw out all the scientific advances created this way to suit him?

dehammer,
I didn?t read everything, but it sounds as if point of the blog is to say they didn?t test the mechanism in real-world conditions and that they didn?t look at other possible mechanisms. Therefore, they can?t make any claims about the magnitude of the effect or the relative contribution (given other possible mechanisms).
For that point, this may be true; but taken together with the statistical observations that started this thread, it is suggestive that the results of the Danish experiment may be pointing at a real world mechanism of noticeable magnitude. Granted, just because we observe the effect they suggest, it doesn?t prove causality. Suggestive, but more study is needed, eh?

~samwik

Try as people might you can not repeal the laws of physics just because you disagree with them.

When things get warmer certain chemical reactions accelerate. That isn't my opinion ... that is the law.

Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere trap infrared radiation. That isn't my opinion ... that is the law.

Essentially the naysayers can either claim to have repealed the laws of physics or they must accept that these things are happening. The only thing left in question is the magnitude.

This debate is quite frankly no different from the one about whether cigarettes cause cancer: They do. They did when the tobacco companies denied it. They did when they tried to hide it with "lite" cigarettes, they do today, and they will tomorrow.

As Dostoevsky wrote:
"Nature doesn't consult you; it doesn't give a damn for your wishes or whether its laws please you or do not please you. You must accept it as it is...."

"The only thing left in question is the magnitude." -DA

I agree with what you said, and since I was talking magnitude, was that addressed to my comment? Maybe I didn't get the tone right. Would this last sentence have changed your reply to my comment: "Very, very suggestive, but more study is needed, eh? (I asked sarcastically)

That's overemphasizing a bit, but the right direction.

oh, and re: "The only thing left in question is the magnitude."
Direction is also important, because humans produce both heating and cooling pollutants.

Thanks,
~samagain

After reading a little deeper into Rabett's blog.......... this Real Climate discussion has comments from Martin B Enghoff the author of the paper that started this thread.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/