Weather.

[Jason Pettitt]

But the posts are not about cosmic rays.

I've bolded bits to help you Roy.

little has been tested, or indeed theorised, as to the part possibly played by Earth's movement through the cosmos, or the part played by the Sun's variations.

Yep! In fact until about 18 months no serious publication would publish any such. The change began with reports of an extremely quiet, 'Quiet Sun.'

Roy.

Moving though differing densities of Cosmic Rays is a (the) mechanism by which Earth's movement through the cosmos is suggested to have some impact on ice ages and they are also a suggested agent for the Sun's variations affecting climate - as detailed and discussed in the umpteen research papers published in reputable journals over several decades.

bosshogg saying that what is known amounts to little may be fair enough. But you are clearly wrong to insinuate that journals would not publish on those topics when evidently they have.

I know it's a popular meme - conspiracy websites, youtube jesters and the Daily Mail like to pretend that climate science is somehow a locked down institution and averse to investigating anything but CO2, but as sources go they're pretty silly and you shouldn't credit them.

 

[Digit]

Still don't see any mention of cosmic rays.

Roy.

 

[Jason Pettitt]

It's okay Roy, you don't have to - though everything you might need to connect the dots (all three of them), including a hand to hold, has been given to you. You just need to know that those inquisitive men and women of science are busy investigating Earth's movement through the cosmos and the Sun's variations and how those things might influence climate via cosmic rays and that it's been going on openly in the scientific literature and has been doing so for decades.

There are none so blind...

 

[Digit]

I'm not interested Jason, I made no mention of cosmic rays, then you posted a slew of links that 'proved' my statement was wrong.
That seems to be a rather convoluted way of thinking.


Roy.

 

[Jason Pettitt]

Clearly you're not interested in being shown wrong. Who would be? But the best way to do that would be to avoid being wrong in the first by not making stuff up and presenting it as fact, and also to develop a strategy for accepting and learning when you are wrong.

Moving through the cosmos doesn't affect ice ages because of woo. If it happens there's a physical mechanism - cosmic rays (not woo, but actual protons you can measure and poke with a really good stick) are and have been investigated as a mechanism. You insinuated that science was averse to going there...

In fact until about 18 months [sic] no serious publication would publish any such.

...Evidently that's not the case. Because science did. And I'm minded to defend it because when it comes to climate science get's a lot of stick that it doesn't deserve.

If the Sun's variations affect climate it's not because of woo, but because there are physical mechanisms. A relationship between the Sun's variations, cosmic rays and climate is and has been openly investigated in the scientific literature. You insinuated that respectable journals were somehow averse to treading there.

Evidently that's not the case, they've been treading all over there.

you posted a slew of links that 'proved' my statement was wrong.

You're statement was factually wrong. It doesn't matter that you didn't mention a specific mechanism by name. Your claim was generic. It shouldn't take a whole page to accept that and move on.

 

[Digit]

Jason, in case it has escaped your notice the OP and debate was on sun variance, so give up the trolling!

Roy.

 

[Jason Pettitt]

In case it escaped your notice Roy, you were responding to a part of a comment bosshog made, not about the subject of the OP: Ultra Violet influence on weather, but about the possible effects moving through the cosmos and the sun's variance may have on climate.

Let's not beat around the bush. It couldn't have escaped your notice. You quoted the guy. You noticed. Don't hold me to a standard you're not prepared to keep yourself.

And you responded by 'knowingly' insinuating that science was institutionally averse to publishing ideas it had actually been publishing for decades. I'm sorry, but that was a bad call.

so give up the trolling!

Roy, the only interesting thing here was how easy it was to show that you were wrong. I only needed to provide one good example to question your premise, but it took a smidgen of background knowledge and less than 10 seconds to effortlessly come up with reams of examples that show unequivocally that your claim that science was averse to publishing around these issues is false.

That you're finding it so hard to admit that you were wrong having taken the cheap shot is not interesting, and I only apologise to anyone who might have been trying to follow the thread. Next time I'll leave you to being wrong.

 

[Digit]

Morning Bosshog. As Jason continues on about cosmic Rays I have refrained from commenting and decided to return to the hymn sheet we were using, Solar Radiance.

There is plenty of info available, if you look for it, this is just one example....

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... hA&cad=rja


I commented about the difficulty of getting such published, here....


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... 8w&cad=rja


I also note that, as of the last time I checked, the Guardian, pretty much alone of the dailies, has made no mention of Nature's publication.
For my self, I have no problem with climate change, but the man made bit I'm less certain of, then again, as a friend of mine states, 'all that CO2 must be doing something!' But when articles are published suggesting that man made GW will affect plate tectonics I give up! (I'll pm you that gem if you wish.)
Meantime I leave you with this little gem which I thought entirely appropriate.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... bg&cad=rja

Roy.

 

[bosshogg]

I will have to read the later google reference more fully, to correlate it with that which was taught to me. That being said the paragraph titled Power and Wealth is most enlightening.
Having gone through the sustainable education process (MSc.) I find it disturbing that money, is the only by-product to come out of all the hype of the climate change bandwagon, that has been rolled out since it's concept.
Perhaps I am naive, but I have studied the UN, WHO, EU and many other fundamental bodies reports, at no time is corporate business, in it's current guise, likely to provide any answers to the dilemma, and yet some, are now perceived as the planets saviours, if you are gullible enough too be taken in...
It would be very easy to climb on board the anti sustainable bandwagon as a means of opposition to the now norm of big business, governance and general greed (the big buck signs are all too omnipresent) in my view that would be every bit as bad, better would be keeping an open mind, striving to do better things, and sharing your knowledge, just as we are doing here.
I would like to share a fundamental truth if I can, MONEY, exactly what is it. Consider this...if money, as we know it today, did not exist, how would we trade? seriously, you have to immerse all thought into what money really is, to enable yourself join in such a debate...bosshogg

P.S. is the tectonic plate inclusion with climate change a piece of empirical research Roy?

 

[Digit]

I'll pm you the whole thing bh, some of it I suspect should be taken with a pinch of salt as some are as dedicated antis as some are pro of course.

Roy.