This is you rewriting Svensmark's theory, without his approval. It's not a claim he makes, and it doesn't make any sense. As usual, you understand nothing.
Again you're just showing your ignorance. Svensmark built on work done by Pudovkin and Veretenenko who showed reductions in cloud cover linked to solar variability. What I'm talking about are the range of potential effects. Several experiments so far have shown increased nucleation rates using gamma rays and particle beams.
But you still don't seem to know what you're denying. It's not really a very new idea, but the new expermiments do seem to show the lack of understanding in your cult regarding cloud formation, and how accurately that's modelled.
Err.. is this you now admitting that neutrino detectors do detect GCR's?
The point is that they have no option, so the confounding events have to be vetoed. You've never been able to grasp this, because you don't understand any physics.
The wider point (which you also don't understand) is that no cosmic ray can be directly linked to a neutrino of extra-terrestrial origin. For rather obvious reasons (but probably not obvious to you) atmospheric neutrinos are of precisely zero value in identifying the source of cosmic rays.
I think some time ago you said you were homeschooled in physics and I guess that's showing now.
Hilarious. I guess that's a reference to the fact that I told you I knew about the solar neutrino problem as a schoolboy long before it was resolved, and long before I took my degree in physics. You seemed to think that the acquisition of knowledge was impossible prior to the invention of the World Wide Web - not that even that Marvel of the Age seems to help you!
You don't seem to understand how the observatories do kind of 'forensic physics' by detecting the wreckage from GCR interactions, then using that to figure out origin & energy levels of the primary GCR.
The only one with a demonstrated lack of understanding is you, which is why I suspect that this rather vague paragraph conceals yet another misunderstanding about the origins of high energy neutrinos. Where do you think this "wreckage" is happening?
The point is that they have no option, so the confounding events have to be vetoed. You've never been able to grasp this, because you don't understand any physics.
Nope, you're still not getting it. The 'confounding events' are just events below the threshold you're interested in. Observatory designers use other methods, like deep burial in ice or water to also filter out the GCR's that aren't of interest.
The wider point (which you also don't understand) is that no cosmic ray can be directly linked to a neutrino of extra-terrestrial origin.
Nope, you're still not getting it. What about linking the neutrino to a cosmic ray? Hence why detectors look at direction, so one coming up through the detector through the Earth is maybe of more interest than one travelling downwards. The downward travelling one would stil be detected, and according to you any data should simply be thrown away.. Even though the data may be of interest to some other researcher. Your lot seem happy to delete inconvenient data, or try to conceal it so I guess you think that's normal behaviour for 'scientists'.
For rather obvious reasons (but probably not obvious to you) atmospheric neutrinos are of precisely zero value in identifying the source of cosmic rays.
Nope, you're still not getting it. Your neutrino detector goes 'bing!'. How do you figure out it's origin?
You seemed to think that the acquisition of knowledge was impossible prior to the invention of the World Wide Web - not that even that marvel of the age seems to help you!
It helps me demonstrate your ignorance. Simple yes/no question though.
Do you now accept neutrino detectors detect GCR's?
Where do you think this "wreckage" is happening?
The one's I'm thinking of occur in the usual place, our atmosphere. Y'know, the hadronic cascades / air showers that happen all the time? If that didn't happen, your neutron detectors wouldn't work because GCR's aren't neutrons remember?
A paper published this week finds that cloudiness over Russia has increased during the period of 2001-2010 compared to 1991-2000. Interesting in light of the corresponding global cooling since 2001, Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of cloud formation, the rise of cosmic rays since 2001 to record levels, and the concomitant decrease in solar activity.
Nope, you're still not getting it. The 'confounding events' are just events below the threshold you're interested in. Observatory designers use other methods, like deep burial in ice or water to also filter out the GCR's that aren't of interest.
No, they aren't. If you are looking for neutrinos, you don't want any confounding particle interactions. Burying your observatory deep underground filters out the lower energy particles naturally, reducing the number you need to veto.
Nope, you're still not getting it. What about linking the neutrino to a cosmic ray?
As usual, the only one not getting it is you. You can't link an extra-terrestrial neutrino to a specific cosmic ray. There's no way to do it.
Hence why detectors look at direction, so one coming up through the detector through the Earth is maybe of more interest than one travelling downwards. The downward travelling one would stil be detected, and according to you any data should simply be thrown away.. Even though the data may be of interest to some other researcher. Your lot seem happy to delete inconvenient data, or try to conceal it so I guess you think that's normal behaviour for 'scientists'.
This is just drivel. I guess neutrino astronomers are next on the denier hit-list, because you can't understand what they are doing. Burn their books!
Nope, you're still not getting it. Your neutrino detector goes 'bing!'. How do you figure out it's origin?
I "got it" right from the outset. The point about a neutrino interaction is that the relativistic muon you are detecting emerges from the interaction at almost the same angle as the incident neutrino. This means that you can track its course through the detector, and this points back to the source of the neutrino.
Do you now accept neutrino detectors detect GCR's?
They have no choice. GCR interactions create muons too. That's why they try to avoid most, and veto the rest.
Nobody on the planet uses a neutrino observatory to measure GCR flux, as I told you long ago. But you haven't managed to learn a single thing.
The one's I'm thinking of occur in the usual place, our atmosphere.
Oh, you think that's the "usual place", do you? As I thought, you still don't get it. Your contribution to physics should be a new unit of density, the Eel.
When you wrote...
"You don't seem to understand how the observatories do kind of 'forensic physics' by detecting the wreckage from GCR interactions, then using that to figure out origin & energy levels of the primary GCR."
...how the hell did you think an interaction in the Earth's atmosphere was going to point back to an extra-solar or extra-galactic source?
In addition, according to Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham, for five years Michael J. Economides, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of Houston, has had a standing offer of $10,000 for a single peer-reviewed paper showing causality between carbon dioxide and increased temperature. None exists.
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
I did not realise they relied on climate models for their scientific assessment of climate warming.
perhaps they should all go back to school, :eek::eek::eek:
Climate change: A Summary of the Science. royal society.
38 When only natural climate forcings are put into climate models, the models are
incapable of reproducing the size of the observed increase in global-average surface
temperatures over the past 50 years. However, when the models include estimates of
forcings resulting from human activity, they can reproduce the increase. The same
result is found, albeit with a greater spread between different models, for the simulation
of observed surface temperature changes for each of the habitable continents
separately.
another climate jolly. :eek::eek::D:D
how do you volunteer to be a stooge.
Climate experts gather in Minnesota to learn how to talk science to non-scientists
It's funded by a $300,000 grant from the National Science Foundation because scientists rarely have to discuss, explain or interpret their work outside the scientific arena.
I did not realise they relied on climate models for their scientific assessment of climate warming.
perhaps they should all go back to school, :eek::eek::eek:
Perhaps you could explain how you can model the climate without using climate models?:)
Perhaps you could explain how you can model the climate without using climate models?:)
please tell me how you model something like the worlds climate, when you have only about 10% idea of how it actually works,
I know computer programming and how utterly stupid computers are. they do exactly what you tell them no more no less.
total garbage in total garbage out. even minor garbage in total garbage out.
for a real analysis of AGW you have to look at all the available observational scientific research and try to come to conclusion that way, climate models are still in there foetus state not even in the infancy stage.
You should try reading what the science from CERN actually says, rather than what a crackpot site claims it says. Needless to say, the crackpot description bears no resemblance to the actual science.
No, you don't. We've covered your ignorance about computers here before. You only know a tiny bit more about them than you do about physics (about which you know nothing at all).
total garbage in total garbage out. even minor garbage in total garbage out.
please tell me how you model something like the worlds climate, when you have only about 10% idea of how it actually works,
I know computer programming and how utterly stupid computers are. they do exactly what you tell them no more no less.
Well I have nearly 30 years experience as a software engineer so I think I know computer programming.
total garbage in total garbage out. even minor garbage in total garbage out.
for a real analysis of AGW you have to look at all the available observational scientific research and try to come to conclusion that way, climate models are still in there foetus state not even in the infancy stage.
How good the model is can be judged by how well it does against observed data from the past - the models do very well and are improving all the time. They are not perfect by any means and things like deep sea methane release are difficult though as usual climate scientists are conservative and if anything underestimate the affects of this.
By contrast the denialist proponents offer nothing and pretend everything is simple even though their "theories" don't explain the past let alone predict the future. As an example of how they try to make the complex seem simple and get it completely wrong follow your link to the "hockey stick" website and click on "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect". Incredibly he denies there is a greenhouse effect at all managing to ignore the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury or that the Earth is hotter than the Moon. This same person it seems is also an "expert" on plate tectonics pointing out the "errors" the scientists make in this field and thinks Atlantis is a part of Greenland.:D
As an example of how they try to make the complex seem simple and get it completely wrong follow your link to the "hockey stick" website and click on "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect". Incredibly he denies there is a greenhouse effect at all managing to ignore the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury or that the Earth is hotter than the Moon. This same person it seems is also an "expert" on plate tectonics pointing out the "errors" the scientists make in this field and thinks Atlantis is a part of Greenland.:D
With any of the denier sites, it's pretty much crackpots or ideologues all the way down once you start following the links or reading the articles.
But the "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" man deserves our respect. After all, he alone has discovered the World Design, resolved the Great Mysteries, and shown that:
"All of the sacred traditions of man on Earth are indicated to have originated in a great physical re-formation of the surface of the Earth and of the entire solar system, by the "gods" of worldwide myth and legend. This design requires a new paradigm of scientific investigation and a re-thinking of modern scientific theories, especially the earth and life sciences."
It turns out the Gods wrote the entire design of the cosmos out on the surface of the Earth, so that the constellations are reflected in the shape of the land masses:
"For example, the main form of the constellation Cepheus can be precisely mapped onto the African Horn, the forepart of the constellation Centaurus closely resembles the form of the eastern coast of North America, Crater can be precisely fitted to Hudson Bay, and so on."
So what the mainstream so-called scientists call plate tectonics is quite simply explained:
"The designers broke apart, moved, and re-formed whole continents into their present locations and shapes, in order to enable various constellation forms to be matched to various landforms, in a series of mappings of "heaven onto earth" that, together with the myths and other ancient traditions of mankind, tell the story the "gods" wanted to leave behind for man to find, when he had grown enough in understanding to see it."
Harry Dale Huffman doesn't say whether this process has now ceased (I expect that's in one of his pay-for books), but presumably it must have, otherwise it would be like scribbling all over the plans of the Gods!
I look forward to The Eel enthusiastically embracing Huffman's work. After all, he's yet to meet a crackpot idea he didn't like.
No, they aren't. If you are looking for neutrinos, you don't want any confounding particle interactions.
But neutrinos are created by GCR/atmosphere interaction..
This is just drivel. I guess neutrino astronomers are next on the denier hit-list, because you can't understand what they are doing. Burn their books!
At least I have some that I could burn. But weren't you saying earlier they should be deleting data collected that you think is not relevant? I guess you could say cosmoclimatologists are next on the denier hit list given the renewed interest in GCR's, which means they may be getting some of the AGW funding now to build cosmic ray detectors like IceTop.. But you're already denying that's a GCR detector.
I "got it" right from the outset. The point about a neutrino interaction is that the relativistic muon you are detecting emerges from the interaction at almost the same angle as the incident neutrino. This means that you can track its course through the detector, and this points back to the source of the neutrino.
As usual, the only one not getting it is you. You can't link an extra-terrestrial neutrino to a specific cosmic ray. There's no way to do it.
Shuffled that around a bit to see the non-sense you make. Of course you wouldn't be detecting an 'extra-terrestrial' neutrino with a terrestrial detector so you still have to do something to decide the origin of what you've detected.
They have no choice. GCR interactions create muons too.
Which are even more unstable than you and live for only a couple of microseconds.. G'won... you can admit it and say GCR interactions create neutrinos..
Nobody on the planet uses a neutrino observatory to measure GCR flux, as I told you long ago.
And I cited various observatories that are measuring GCR's. But something else I guess you could tell me.. What does this mean?
Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV
Context is determining GCR flux..
Oh, you think that's the "usual place", do you? As I thought, you still don't get it.
When you wrote...
...how the hell did you think an interaction in the Earth's atmosphere was going to point back to an extra-solar or extra-galactic source?
Hmm... well, I'd have thought there'd be some clue in the name 'air shower'. And more clues in the way those are formed, and you kind of almost got that when you threw in muons.
Your contribution to physics should be a new unit of density, the Eel.
At least I'd be contributing something useful I guess..
No, you don't. We've covered your ignorance about computers here before. You only know a tiny bit more about them than you do about physics (about which you know nothing at all).
now you really show your ignorance.
A claim that is itself total garbage.
any incorrect information that has been fed into a computer will invalidate any information the computer outputs.
and is even less useful if you do not know what the error was in the first place. stop talking garbage.
Well I have nearly 30 years experience as a software engineer so I think I know computer programming.
then you will know. inputting two estimated values, and computing the formulated outcome. gives at best an answer no better than the best estimate. now multiply the best guessed inputs by twenty fold or more, and the output becomes meaningless.
How good the model is can be judged by how well it does against observed data from the past - the models do very well and are improving all the time. They are not perfect by any means and things like deep sea methane release are difficult though as usual climate scientists are conservative and if anything underestimate the affects of this.
How good the model is can be judged by how well it does against observed data from the past
they are totally useless and have to be frigged by changing aerosol levels. to achieve even remotely similar results.
By contrast the denialist proponents offer nothing and pretend everything is simple even though their "theories" don't explain the past let alone predict the future. As an example of how they try to make the complex seem simple and get it completely wrong follow your link to the "hockey stick" website and click on "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect". Incredibly he denies there is a greenhouse effect at all managing to ignore the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury or that the Earth is hotter than the Moon. This same person it seems is also an "expert" on plate tectonics pointing out the "errors" the scientists make in this field and thinks Atlantis is a part of Greenland.:D
has Atlantis been found yet??
some of your own climate scientists reckoned we should be up to our neck in water by now, and some less well educated spokespersons, reckoned we were already past the tipping point of no return to Armageddon. does that mean all climate scientists think that.
no us climate science sceptics say there are a number of things that effect the climate. and unlike climate scientists like Mann et al. we do not discount things like cloud cover and all the other possible forcings just because they might show doubt in the AGW religion.
But neutrinos are created by GCR/atmosphere interaction..
Yes, but the chance of detecting any of them is so close to zero that it is not even worth considering. You never understand anything you read. A detector designed to detect neutrinos can of course detect other particles produced in an air shower initiated by a GCR collision, because that is exactly the same mechanism used to detect neutrino interactions occurring within the body of the detector. This is precisely why those events have to be filtered out if you are looking for the very much rarer neutrino interactions.
Of course you wouldn't be detecting an 'extra-terrestrial' neutrino with a terrestrial detector so you still have to do something to decide the origin of what you've detected.
This paragraph goes right to the heart of Eel's cluelessness. Apparently, a detector specifically designed to detect extra-terrestrial neutrinos can't do the job for which it was designed, and must instead have some purpose that Eel alone has determined based on his rather special understanding of physics.
[Muons] are even more unstable than you and live for only a couple of microseconds
More cluelessness from Eel. If he knew any physics, he would know that muons are the dominant component of the cosmic ray flux at the Earth's surface. If he knew any physics, he would know that the reason more muons arrive at the Earth's surface than would otherwise be expected, given their rather short half-life, is due to time dilation. If he knew any physics, he would know that they decay into an electron or a positron plus two neutrinos, and that both electrons and positrons can also be detected by the optical detectors in the Cherenkov tanks at IceTop, or in the ice in IceCube.
G'won... you can admit it and say GCR interactions create neutrinos..
Why would I have to "admit" something I have never denied? This is just another lie, like your lie that I had claimed neutrinos can't interact with matter. As usual, you half-understand (I'm being very generous) something you read, and promptly leap to the wrong conclusion about it. Nothing you have read will have been talking about detecting the neutrinos from air showers.
Hmm... well, I'd have thought there'd be some clue in the name 'air shower'. And more clues in the way those are formed, and you kind of almost got that when you threw in muons.
Oh, let's explore this further. How do you think an air shower tells you anything whatsoever about the direction of the source of cosmic rays?
any incorrect information that has been fed into a computer will invalidate any information the computer outputs.
and is even less useful if you do not know what the error was in the first place. stop talking garbage.
The only garbage here is what comes out of your head on a regular basis.
Your claim is that any computer model that is less than perfect, or has less than perfect input data, is useless. Your previous claim (in another thread) was that computer models cannot tell you anything you don't already know.
This tells us that you know nothing about computer models.
Your claim is that any computer model that is less than perfect, or has less than perfect input data, is useless. Your previous claim (in another thread) was that computer models cannot tell you anything you don't already know.
This tells us that you know nothing about computer models.
it might tell you quicker but nothing new.
Your claim is that any computer model that is less than perfect, or has less than perfect input data, is useless
would you bet your life on the outcome. plane / rocket. bullet proof vest.
even the IPCC AR4 admit to having little to no understanding of 15 of the 16 components it recognizes as causing climate change
as i said garbage in garbage out.
the IPCC AR4 states, in an appendix, that the level of scientific understanding for 15 of the 16 components it recognizes as causing climate change is medium, medium to low, low, or very low. The LOSU of 5 components is very low. Further, these components do not include ocean oscillations and other natural components that are being recognized as important.
then you will know. inputting two estimated values, and computing the formulated outcome. gives at best an answer no better than the best estimate. now multiply the best guessed inputs by twenty fold or more, and the output becomes meaningless.
They are not meaningless they provide the best predictions we have for future climate, the fact that they successfully model past climate shows a lot. The denialists by contrast have nothing whatsoever and can't even model past climate with their crackpot ideas - ignoring the affects of greenhouse gases makes the past climate impossible to understand let alone model successfully.
How good the model is can be judged by how well it does against observed data from the past
they are totally useless and have to be frigged by changing aerosol levels. to achieve even remotely similar results.
All models of complex systems are adjusted, that is perfectly normal.
no us climate science sceptics say there are a number of things that effect the climate. and unlike climate scientists like Mann et al. we do not discount things like cloud cover and all the other possible forcings just because they might show doubt in the AGW religion.
Climate scientists do not discount things like cloud cover and forcing, I don't know why you think they do unless you've read it somewhere on one of your favourite sites.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
Comments
Again you're just showing your ignorance. Svensmark built on work done by Pudovkin and Veretenenko who showed reductions in cloud cover linked to solar variability. What I'm talking about are the range of potential effects. Several experiments so far have shown increased nucleation rates using gamma rays and particle beams.
But you still don't seem to know what you're denying. It's not really a very new idea, but the new expermiments do seem to show the lack of understanding in your cult regarding cloud formation, and how accurately that's modelled.
The wider point (which you also don't understand) is that no cosmic ray can be directly linked to a neutrino of extra-terrestrial origin. For rather obvious reasons (but probably not obvious to you) atmospheric neutrinos are of precisely zero value in identifying the source of cosmic rays.
Hilarious. I guess that's a reference to the fact that I told you I knew about the solar neutrino problem as a schoolboy long before it was resolved, and long before I took my degree in physics. You seemed to think that the acquisition of knowledge was impossible prior to the invention of the World Wide Web - not that even that Marvel of the Age seems to help you!
The only one with a demonstrated lack of understanding is you, which is why I suspect that this rather vague paragraph conceals yet another misunderstanding about the origins of high energy neutrinos. Where do you think this "wreckage" is happening?
Nope, you're still not getting it. The 'confounding events' are just events below the threshold you're interested in. Observatory designers use other methods, like deep burial in ice or water to also filter out the GCR's that aren't of interest.
Nope, you're still not getting it. What about linking the neutrino to a cosmic ray? Hence why detectors look at direction, so one coming up through the detector through the Earth is maybe of more interest than one travelling downwards. The downward travelling one would stil be detected, and according to you any data should simply be thrown away.. Even though the data may be of interest to some other researcher. Your lot seem happy to delete inconvenient data, or try to conceal it so I guess you think that's normal behaviour for 'scientists'.
Nope, you're still not getting it. Your neutrino detector goes 'bing!'. How do you figure out it's origin?
It helps me demonstrate your ignorance. Simple yes/no question though.
Do you now accept neutrino detectors detect GCR's?
The one's I'm thinking of occur in the usual place, our atmosphere. Y'know, the hadronic cascades / air showers that happen all the time? If that didn't happen, your neutron detectors wouldn't work because GCR's aren't neutrons remember?
As usual, the only one not getting it is you. You can't link an extra-terrestrial neutrino to a specific cosmic ray. There's no way to do it.
This is just drivel. I guess neutrino astronomers are next on the denier hit-list, because you can't understand what they are doing. Burn their books!
I "got it" right from the outset. The point about a neutrino interaction is that the relativistic muon you are detecting emerges from the interaction at almost the same angle as the incident neutrino. This means that you can track its course through the detector, and this points back to the source of the neutrino.
They have no choice. GCR interactions create muons too. That's why they try to avoid most, and veto the rest.
Nobody on the planet uses a neutrino observatory to measure GCR flux, as I told you long ago. But you haven't managed to learn a single thing.
Oh, you think that's the "usual place", do you? As I thought, you still don't get it. Your contribution to physics should be a new unit of density, the Eel.
When you wrote...
"You don't seem to understand how the observatories do kind of 'forensic physics' by detecting the wreckage from GCR interactions, then using that to figure out origin & energy levels of the primary GCR."
...how the hell did you think an interaction in the Earth's atmosphere was going to point back to an extra-solar or extra-galactic source?
Letter: Global warning lacks proof
http://www.willows-journal.com/articles/scientific-6143-global-impact.html
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8259
perhaps they should all go back to school, :eek::eek::eek:
Climate change: A Summary of the Science. royal society. http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
how do you volunteer to be a stooge.
Climate experts gather in Minnesota to learn how to talk science to non-scientists
https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=40&article_id=212176&CFID=377537531&CFTOKEN=22231643
Perhaps you could explain how you can model the climate without using climate models?:)
please tell me how you model something like the worlds climate, when you have only about 10% idea of how it actually works,
I know computer programming and how utterly stupid computers are. they do exactly what you tell them no more no less.
total garbage in total garbage out. even minor garbage in total garbage out.
for a real analysis of AGW you have to look at all the available observational scientific research and try to come to conclusion that way, climate models are still in there foetus state not even in the infancy stage.
A claim that is itself total garbage.
How good the model is can be judged by how well it does against observed data from the past - the models do very well and are improving all the time. They are not perfect by any means and things like deep sea methane release are difficult though as usual climate scientists are conservative and if anything underestimate the affects of this.
By contrast the denialist proponents offer nothing and pretend everything is simple even though their "theories" don't explain the past let alone predict the future. As an example of how they try to make the complex seem simple and get it completely wrong follow your link to the "hockey stick" website and click on "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect". Incredibly he denies there is a greenhouse effect at all managing to ignore the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury or that the Earth is hotter than the Moon. This same person it seems is also an "expert" on plate tectonics pointing out the "errors" the scientists make in this field and thinks Atlantis is a part of Greenland.:D
But the "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" man deserves our respect. After all, he alone has discovered the World Design, resolved the Great Mysteries, and shown that:
"All of the sacred traditions of man on Earth are indicated to have originated in a great physical re-formation of the surface of the Earth and of the entire solar system, by the "gods" of worldwide myth and legend. This design requires a new paradigm of scientific investigation and a re-thinking of modern scientific theories, especially the earth and life sciences."
It turns out the Gods wrote the entire design of the cosmos out on the surface of the Earth, so that the constellations are reflected in the shape of the land masses:
"For example, the main form of the constellation Cepheus can be precisely mapped onto the African Horn, the forepart of the constellation Centaurus closely resembles the form of the eastern coast of North America, Crater can be precisely fitted to Hudson Bay, and so on."
So what the mainstream so-called scientists call plate tectonics is quite simply explained:
"The designers broke apart, moved, and re-formed whole continents into their present locations and shapes, in order to enable various constellation forms to be matched to various landforms, in a series of mappings of "heaven onto earth" that, together with the myths and other ancient traditions of mankind, tell the story the "gods" wanted to leave behind for man to find, when he had grown enough in understanding to see it."
Harry Dale Huffman doesn't say whether this process has now ceased (I expect that's in one of his pay-for books), but presumably it must have, otherwise it would be like scribbling all over the plans of the Gods!
I look forward to The Eel enthusiastically embracing Huffman's work. After all, he's yet to meet a crackpot idea he didn't like.
But neutrinos are created by GCR/atmosphere interaction..
At least I have some that I could burn. But weren't you saying earlier they should be deleting data collected that you think is not relevant? I guess you could say cosmoclimatologists are next on the denier hit list given the renewed interest in GCR's, which means they may be getting some of the AGW funding now to build cosmic ray detectors like IceTop.. But you're already denying that's a GCR detector.
Shuffled that around a bit to see the non-sense you make. Of course you wouldn't be detecting an 'extra-terrestrial' neutrino with a terrestrial detector so you still have to do something to decide the origin of what you've detected.
Which are even more unstable than you and live for only a couple of microseconds.. G'won... you can admit it and say GCR interactions create neutrinos..
And I cited various observatories that are measuring GCR's. But something else I guess you could tell me.. What does this mean?
Rigidity (1965): 2.99 GV
Context is determining GCR flux..
Hmm... well, I'd have thought there'd be some clue in the name 'air shower'. And more clues in the way those are formed, and you kind of almost got that when you threw in muons.
At least I'd be contributing something useful I guess..
I'm no fan of hockey sticks or wooden thermometers, so I guess you're wrong again.
any incorrect information that has been fed into a computer will invalidate any information the computer outputs.
and is even less useful if you do not know what the error was in the first place. stop talking garbage.
How good the model is can be judged by how well it does against observed data from the past
they are totally useless and have to be frigged by changing aerosol levels. to achieve even remotely similar results.
has Atlantis been found yet??
some of your own climate scientists reckoned we should be up to our neck in water by now, and some less well educated spokespersons, reckoned we were already past the tipping point of no return to Armageddon. does that mean all climate scientists think that.
no us climate science sceptics say there are a number of things that effect the climate. and unlike climate scientists like Mann et al. we do not discount things like cloud cover and all the other possible forcings just because they might show doubt in the AGW religion.
This paragraph goes right to the heart of Eel's cluelessness. Apparently, a detector specifically designed to detect extra-terrestrial neutrinos can't do the job for which it was designed, and must instead have some purpose that Eel alone has determined based on his rather special understanding of physics.
More cluelessness from Eel. If he knew any physics, he would know that muons are the dominant component of the cosmic ray flux at the Earth's surface. If he knew any physics, he would know that the reason more muons arrive at the Earth's surface than would otherwise be expected, given their rather short half-life, is due to time dilation. If he knew any physics, he would know that they decay into an electron or a positron plus two neutrinos, and that both electrons and positrons can also be detected by the optical detectors in the Cherenkov tanks at IceTop, or in the ice in IceCube.
Why would I have to "admit" something I have never denied? This is just another lie, like your lie that I had claimed neutrinos can't interact with matter. As usual, you half-understand (I'm being very generous) something you read, and promptly leap to the wrong conclusion about it. Nothing you have read will have been talking about detecting the neutrinos from air showers.
Oh, let's explore this further. How do you think an air shower tells you anything whatsoever about the direction of the source of cosmic rays?
I can't wait to learn how that works!
Your claim is that any computer model that is less than perfect, or has less than perfect input data, is useless. Your previous claim (in another thread) was that computer models cannot tell you anything you don't already know.
This tells us that you know nothing about computer models.
it might tell you quicker but nothing new.
would you bet your life on the outcome. plane / rocket. bullet proof vest.
even the IPCC AR4 admit to having little to no understanding of 15 of the 16 components it recognizes as causing climate change
as i said garbage in garbage out.
They are not meaningless they provide the best predictions we have for future climate, the fact that they successfully model past climate shows a lot. The denialists by contrast have nothing whatsoever and can't even model past climate with their crackpot ideas - ignoring the affects of greenhouse gases makes the past climate impossible to understand let alone model successfully.
All models of complex systems are adjusted, that is perfectly normal.
Climate scientists do not discount things like cloud cover and forcing, I don't know why you think they do unless you've read it somewhere on one of your favourite sites.
All those are extensively modelled, modern plane design for instance would be very different without computer modelling.
And apparently, so would the hysterical claims of the alarmists.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html