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

samwik asks:
"and since I was talking magnitude, was that addressed to my comment?"

No. I was in support of what you wrote. Should have made that clearer.

I did not read every word of it myself, but did pay attension to what he was saying about how the test was done and all of his complaints about it.

basically, in order to have something real world conditions you have to have it more in the real world. this works find as long as the subject is in small confined area, say cows in a pasture, but not well when the subject is the atmosphere and radiation. in order to test the levels of radiation in the real world, it would be necissary to put a large part of the world at risk, and no scientist is going to try that and publish the info. Using methods such as these is common practice when you are trying to discover things in a relatively short time and cant do things in the real world. had they somehow done it in the real world, it would have cost easily 1000 times as much, taking several decades and not been as certain of all the varibles being accounted for.

yes, more research is needed, but the conclusion are not wrong just because of that.

did galileo change the laws of physics?

did issac newton change the laws of physics?

they made the laws more known. they did not change them.

they have discovered that different types of clouds will either cool or warm the earth, depending on their altitude, brightness and many other factors we dont yet know of.

there has been proven a link between the cosmic radiation we recieve from space and lower level clouds. while the amount of radiation from stars dont vary that much, the amount of material thrown out by the sun from solar flares does vary a lot. it is also a proven fact that the material from the flares blocks the cosmic radiation to the same degree that of the material (ie, the more material thrown out, the more cr is blocked).

the result is that when there is more solar flare activity, the clouds form in the lower atmosphere more causing a warming, and dont form higher level clouds as much. the reverse is true too. When there is a lower level of flares, more radiation causes higher level clouds to form, causing more solar energy to be reflected, causing a cooling period.

while the affect might not be noticable as such in a given area, the global affect can be very striking.

for many years its been evident that the solar flares had major effect on the weather, but since there was no direct link between them GWA's refused to accept that the sun was the cause of the warming. they claimed that the solar activity did not have any effect. now that the link has been found, they are doing their best to deny that it is real.

Hate to Quote myself, but I finished this long Real Climate thread and they have this topic covered! I strongly suggest all to read it.

one big problem i have with that site is that they claim that there is no evidence of a lowering of cosmic radiation. yet there have been ice core samples that show a change in it. there is evidence of something corrilating the changes in global temperature with the variations in the solar activities.

they say the effect would be very small, yet they also claim that the tiny amount of co2 warming the planet is responsible for a humongus change. If a small change in co2 can cause that much of a change, why cant a small amount of change in how much of the high level clouds are caused by cosmic radiation. Appearantly it only takes a small change in the atmosphere to have a major change, so why cant this small change have as much of an effect as the tiny change in co2.

A little OT.......but these measurments do provide a field history 800,000 years ago and implies stability of geodynamo processes on billion-year timescales.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7115/edsumm/e061102-05.html

dehammer asks:
"If a small change in co2 can cause that much of a change, why cant a small amount of change in how much of the high level clouds are caused by cosmic radiation."

Because the laws of physics are the laws of physics. They work as they work. The fact that they don't please you will not cause them to change with or without the intervention of prayer.

so the people that refused to look thought galileo's telescope because it showed laws of phyics that they did not want to accept should have been accepted at their words that the laws of physics that galileo was suggesting was not right?

just because you dont accept that there are laws of physics that disagree with you does not mean that they are not there. simply stating that this cant happen does not prevent it from doing so. saying that you dont accept that fact that distance stars, in conjuntion with our sun, can affect our weather does not mean that they dont.

you cant rant and rave about the laws of physics, but ignoring some of them does not preclude them from existing.



this applys to you as well.

dehammer wrote:
"so the people that refused to look thought galileo's telescope because it showed laws of phyics that they did not want to accept should have been accepted at their words that the laws of physics that galileo was suggesting was not right?"

Even you don't believe what you just wrote is what I meant. Give it a break!

of course i did not believe that, but appearantly from your older post, you do. you act as if all laws of physics are known, and all the things that act on the atmosphere are known. that is the atitude that those that belittle galileo showed. they "knew" all their was to know of physics and did not want to admit that there were things in space that did not follow their preconcieved notions. you are doing the exact thing.

you claim that its a proven fact that the co2 is causing the problems when the only "proof" is models that dont work well without constant alterations. You and others have claimed that the suns solar flares had no effect on the weather, but now they have shown how it can.

your response to that proof is, "Because the laws of physics are the laws of physics. They work as they work. The fact that they don't please you will not cause them to change with or without the intervention of prayer."

im sure there were some around galileo that made the equilant response to him.

DAM wrote:
"Even you don't believe what you just wrote is what I meant."

to which dehammer responded:
"of course i did not believe that, but appearantly from your older post, you do."

No point in my disagreeing with you as in a single sentence you just disagreed with yourself. Ouch!

can you not see the question mark at the end of that sentence? that was a question, retorical in nature. Of course, i did not believe it, but it was intended to show you where your attitude was going.

you had the same attitude that those people had in galileo's time. That being, "if you dont know a law of physics, it cant exist". You claim that just because you dont see who something works it cant. The laws of physics dont care wheither or not you can understand them, they work the same way irregardless. denying they exist doesnt stop them from happening. There is a proven connection between solar activity and global warming/cooling. It does not matter wheither you accept this or not, its there. Now they know how it does it. Claiming that the laws of physics dont allow it, is just the same as the people around galileo refusing to look though the telescope because they didnt believe the laws of physics allowed what it showed.

stop being a politician and trying to claim white is black.

dehammer spins:
"can you not see the question mark at the end of that sentence?"

Here is the sentence in question:
"of course i did not believe that, but appearantly from your older post, you do. you act as if all laws of physics are known, and all the things that act on the atmosphere are known. that is the atitude that those that belittle galileo showed. they "knew" all their was to know of physics and did not want to admit that there were things in space that did not follow their preconcieved notions. you are doing the exact thing."

... and the sentences following it for the entire paragraph. Do you?

as usually, when you are proven to be wrong you misdirect. why didnt you go into politics. your extreamly good at hiding things in plain sight.

here is the real statement were discussing.

do you see the question mark there. that is the rhetorical question i mentioned. of course no one believes this but you have the same attitude.

But that's not the one I was responding too.

Good try but no cigar!

thats the one you quote before, and the one i refered to. that is the one that you were making fun of, so its the one we are discussing.

good try but once again you didnt misdirect.

Please pay attention dehammer:

posted November 02, 2006 06:34 PM by DA Morgan
"Even you don't believe what you just wrote is what I meant."

and you responded:
posted November 03, 2006 02:09 AM
of course i did not believe that

===================================

Thank you.
Enough said.
Didn't your mother teach you to accept responsibility?
Please don't try to weasel out of it.
You acknowledged your own lack of belief in your words.
End of story.

But if you really must get in the last word by all means do so as my participation in this thread is ended.

lets get the whole thing out


see that is the comment we are discussing. not your failed attempt to misdirect. try as you can. its not the fact that i did not beleive that those who disagreed with galileo should have been listened to. I put a question mark on the end and of course you ignored it. I was asking if you believed it. you act as though you do.

now do you want to keep this childist attempt to misdirect or do you want to act like an adult and get back to the subject.

dehammer wrote:
"see that is the comment we are discussing."

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

DA Morgan wrote:
"no it isn't"

dehammer wrote:
"yes it is"

No dehammer ... that is what YOU are discussing: Not WE. WE means two people and I know precisely what I was commenting upon.

The only thing WE have been doing is MISCOMMUNICATING. In my opinion intentionally on your part.

And now, no matter what you write here, I will not respond so last words are yours.

If da is finished trying to misdirect this, can we get back to the discussion



I believe we were discussing the fact that its been shown that cosmic radiation causes clouds to form higher and brighter, thus cooling the planet, and that solar flares send out material that deflected, reflected or dispersed in some manner the cosmic radiation before it reaches the earth. This allows the clouds to form lower and darker, causing the earth to warm up.

this is the missing link that global warming alarmist have been trying for years to deny as unproven between solar flare activity and earths cooling and warming.