Danish Scientist's Global Warming Theory

[AJTalon]

Danish Scientist Study says Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming

To summarize, Dr. Svensmark, a Danish astronomer, has theorized that not only do the sun's shifts cause global warming, but that clouds are directly affected and created with help from cosmic rays (energetic particles emitted from supernovae, black holes, etc. that are bombarding the planet all the time).

Here's the breakdown: While clouds are composed of water vapor, they need something else to hold themselves together. This is where cosmic rays come in. As the particles of the cosmic rays travel through our atmosphere they hit larger molecules, either of dust in the atmosphere or other materials floating above us, ionizing these molecules. Like how your computer screen attracts dust, the ionization cause by the particle's impact causes electromagnetic attraction between the dust molecules (now called ions) and water molecules, making them stick together. The water vapor thus condenses into clouds.

Now, what does this have to do with the sun and global warming? Simple. When the sun is more active, it produces more solar wind, sending out a larger volume of photons and other particles. These particles make it harder for cosmic rays to actually reach the Earth due to the billiard ball effect (the particles hit other particles before they hit the atmosphere). Fewer cosmic rays means less ionization in the atmosphere. Less ionization means fewer clouds. Fewer clouds means less solar energy is being reflected away from the planet. Less solar energy being deflected, means the planet becomes much warmer overall. Thus, global warming.

Keep in mind this is only a theory, but the experimentation data and math look solid (my dad, a mathematician, has done his own calculations and confirmed this for me), and truth be told the majority of the criticism towards Dr. Svensmark is not that his theory is bad science or that he overlooked something, but that his politics are wrong.

So, what do you guys think? Is Dr. Svensmark on the money? Or does his theory need more work? And if his theory is solid, why won't the UN take it seriously?

BTW, he's not funded by an oil company. In fact, he's received most of his funding from (of all things) a beer company, heh...

[Tages]

Countdown to Ian stoning this thread to death in 5, 4, 3...


EDIT: Ah, hell, I'll post these, just for the pleasure of denying a social democrat the satisfaction.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...f?dmode=source

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/i...smic-rays.html

[AJTalon]

Countdown to Ian stoning this thread to death in 5, 4, 3...

Because it's bad science, or because it doesn't fit his politics?

God, why does science have to be politicized? If it's true, then it's true. If it's not, then we keep looking for what causes climate change. I don't see the problem.

Well, I do, but to be honest it's merely a theory...

[Tages]

Because it's bad science, or because it doesn't fit his politics?

Both......

By the way, *points up*

[AJTalon]

Hey, I just thought the article looked interesting, my dad (who also read it) said the math for the basic idea works, but to be honest it's still only a theory and has yet to be conclusively proved.

And let's think about this: If the sun is more active, then there should be fewer clouds. Do we have any statistics on that to work with?

Again, I emphasize this is merely a theory. Every liberal seems to be jumping on it like the Catholic Church on Galileo.

[Tages]

Hey, I just thought the article looked interesting, my dad (who also read it) said the math for the basic idea works, but to be honest it's still only a theory and has yet to be conclusively proved.

And let's think about this: If the sun is more active, then there should be fewer clouds. Do we have any statistics on that to work with?

Again, I emphasize this is merely a theory. Every liberal seems to be jumping on it like the Catholic Church on Galileo.

I haven't seen much reaction. But I'm not a liberal and decline to travel in their degenerate, permissive, relativist circles, so I may not be the best person to ask.

(Mwahahahahahahahaha!)

[AJTalon]

I haven't seen much reaction. But I'm not a liberal and decline to travel in their degenerate, permissive, relativist circles, so I may not be the best person to ask.

(Mwahahahahahahahaha!)

Either way, their reactions to this theory pretty much destroy their credibility. If they want to criticize it on the grounds that it's bad science then fine, I can understand that. No one takes the "Earth is Flat" theory seriously anymore (aside from the truly delusional). But attacking him because the theory is not politically acceptable is nothing short of vile and disgusting.

[Tages]

Either way, their reactions to this theory pretty much destroy their credibility. If they want to criticize it on the grounds that it's bad science then fine, I can understand that. No one takes the "Earth is Flat" theory seriously anymore (aside from the truly delusional). But attacking him because the theory is not politically acceptable is nothing short of vile and disgusting.

Who is "they?"

The imprecise language in use here almost seems to imply that you think the credibility of all self-described liberals, everywhere, is destroyed.

[AJTalon]

Who is "they?"

The imprecise language in use here almost seems to imply that you think the credibility of all self-described liberals, everywhere, is destroyed.

No, just the ones in the Al Gore camp. Sorry, I've been rather stressed out lately.

[Tages]

No, just the ones in the Al Gore camp. Sorry, I've been rather stressed out lately.

No big.

Al Gore annoys me anyway. Less than when he was veep, but still.

[AJTalon]

No big.

Al Gore annoys me anyway. Less than when he was veep, but still.

Yes, I applaud him having the courage to speak out on the excesses and self-destructive nature of mankind... While living in a multi-million dollar mansion that consumes far more energy than the average American family does.

[Charles RB]

Either way, their reactions to this theory pretty much destroy their credibility. If they want to criticize it on the grounds that it's bad science then fine, I can understand that.

And when I see the theory criticised, it's always on the grounds of bad science, so you appear to be looking at different sites to me.

[AJTalon]

And when I see the theory criticised, it's always on the grounds of bad science, so you appear to be looking at different sites to me.

Did you actually read the original article?

[Charles RB]

Did you actually read the original article?

Yes. And our evidence there that his theory is being ignored because of politics is... his word. Now when a guy criticised for bad science says "I think I'm being ignored because of politics!", after the original article mentions most leading climate scientists think he's wrong, I don't view that as a great source.

[AJTalon]

Yes. And our evidence there that his theory is being ignored because of politics is... his word. Now when a guy criticised for bad science says "I think I'm being ignored because of politics!", after the original article mentions most leading climate scientists think he's wrong, I don't view that as a great source.

Or the fact that most mainstream media outlets have ignored the article entirely. Gee, nothing suspect about that.

Granted, after reviewing the original paper itself and looking through other articles, the idea that this is the definitive proof of humanity's innocence in global warming is not established. Again, I reiterate that this is only a theory.

Dismissing it out of hand however is not the right thing to do. It requires further investigation.