Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
'No Sun Link' to climate change
Topic Started: Apr 2 2008, 09:18 PM (369 Views)
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
somerled
Apr 3 2008, 09:40 AM
38957
Apr 3 2008, 10:34 PM
The sun has no like to sun-burn either.  Your skin just turns red because of all the carbon emissions, not because of the radiation from the sun cooking it.  That don't happen.

And you are out doing active things in the sun on a hot day and are sweating , it's the sun making you melt .... :doh:

Yep .... forget all that science you learnt in school and college or university , 5 year old kids had it right all along.

Have you ever gotten a sunburn when you were out active and sweating in the middle of the night?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Quote:
 
Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.

............

"So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."




Thats what the study was really about?, thats ridiculous, doesnt prove anything either way, too many missed unknown variables
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
38957
Apr 4 2008, 03:19 AM
somerled
Apr 3 2008, 09:40 AM
38957
Apr 3 2008, 10:34 PM
The sun has no like to sun-burn either.  Your skin just turns red because of all the carbon emissions, not because of the radiation from the sun cooking it.  That don't happen.

And you are out doing active things in the sun on a hot day and are sweating , it's the sun making you melt .... :doh:

Yep .... forget all that science you learnt in school and college or university , 5 year old kids had it right all along.

Have you ever gotten a sunburn when you were out active and sweating in the middle of the night?

Actually .... yes .... I was working near a magnesia electric arc furnace (operates at about 3500 degrees celsius) and copped a dose of UV when the molten refractory was pored into a torpedo laddle.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
captain_proton_au
Apr 4 2008, 12:02 AM
Quote:
 
Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.

............

"So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."




Thats what the study was really about?, thats ridiculous, doesnt prove anything either way, too many missed unknown variables

Depends on how much data they looked at i.e. how many incidences and over what time period. The greater those numbers are the greater the level of statistical significance.

If a study like that can show a correlation, or in this case none/a weak one, at least then that invites a follow-up analysis to try and explain the findings using other variables.

At least their work is published, peer-reviewed, and available for publicly written scrutiny from other scientists. If, as you say, it is ridiculous, then someone will have a fun time writing a published critique.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

STC
Apr 3 2008, 06:28 PM

Depends on how much data they looked at i.e. how many incidences and over what time period. The greater those numbers are the greater the level of statistical significance.

It's got nothing to do with it


The title was made up by someone at the BBC, not the researchers and is rather misleading.

The study was about how solar winds affect cloud cover, all it shows is that direct radiation might have nothing to do with the formation of clouds.


This study was never ever going to tell us anything about indirect effects or the total net effect on the earth.

To say this study proves the sun has no effect on climate change is a blatant lie
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
Apr 4 2008, 12:16 PM
STC
Apr 3 2008, 06:28 PM

Depends on how much data they looked at i.e. how many incidences and over what time period. The greater those numbers are the greater the level of statistical significance.

It's got nothing to do with it


The title was made up by someone at the BBC, not the researchers and is rather misleading.

The study was about how solar winds affect cloud cover, all it shows is that direct radiation might have nothing to do with the formation of clouds.


This study was never ever going to tell us anything about indirect effects or the total net effect on the earth.

To say this study proves the sun has no effect on climate change is a blatant lie

However the physics paper was not and is based on a refereed scientific study and paper (you did read it ?) , you are oversimplifying , of cause the sun effects climate (it energises the planet) , it is the forcing effects of small variations in solar output that has been shown to be negligible in driving the observed global climatic changes we are seeing and experiencing now that both are talking about.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus