Good find, so could deforrestation explain warming and has this now been factored back in to the models? Still if cosmic rays don't explain the observations, something else must, or perhaps the slight variation on solar brightness is enough to affect tree growth?
As far as I'm aware, it has been factored in as a contributor, as trees convert Carbon Dioxide into oxygen, so less trees = less conversion. This new discovery shows that trees can help to provide a shield as it were from the sun. Regarding Cosmic rays and the observations, and this is my opinion from watching the video and reading the links, they don't specifically say it on those links (that I could find in layman's terms anyway), is that they were correct with cosmic rays and the observations are correct and linked. It is still a factor and continues to happen, but it's not as big a factor as they were hoping it to be. It seemed to me that the cosmic rays/sun activity/cloud formation process works when everything is in a natural balance, it can do it's thing. However when some 'other' influence gets mixed in, be it man made emissions, volcanic activity, change in vegetation extent or similar, that it's influence is lessened. I'd have to read into it more to get a better understanding of what they tested and their results, but that might be just a step too far in complication for me Again, thanks for the video link. It was very interesting and helped to fill in a whole area of information I just didn't know about!
Well NASA are forecasting an imminent fall off in solar radiation, the physics underlying the greenhouse theory is increasingly suspect. Meanwhile the same night that C4 News reports receding Himalayan glaciers the Arctic ice thickness reportedly continues to increase as it has in recent seasons. The picture is ‘mixed’ so buy a V8 with a clear conscience but why not a V12?
As I posted before, both can be true, neither disproves the other. But then both their affects negate each other, so in fact anthropogenic warming could be preventing us from having a mini ice age right now. Dosn't bare well for when the sun moves in to a warming cycle, that will be compounded with anthropenic warming, and nobody will belive the scientists by then either.
And therein lies the whole problem cui bono? The answer was originally the politicians but they have lost control of their own creation. Frankenstein! And now we have the totally unprincipled recruiting the ignorant young for their own ends. The BBC having a know nothing 15 yr old harangue prospective PMs FFS.
Ok I might draw criticism again for posting "a video from some guy on the internet", but then this guy just does happen to have a PhD in climate science and is not on anyones payroll...
I know I have previous said I wont give my own opinion but.... I watched that for a minute and knew what he was going to say. I didnt bother watching any more. I have been saying it (or i think i have ) for 20 years probably and despite a background in climatology and meteorology get ridiculed by people who know nothing. "You know more than ALL the world's scientists?" (it's always all). I usually say three things to try and focus their minds.. "when was the first thermometer invented?" "when did someone actually think it was a good idea to put a scale on them?" I then tell them about an article i ready many years ago (1984 to be precise). At that time the spread of neolithic man across Europe was tracked by measuring carbon in soil samples. i.e. Neolithic man used fire, more carbon in the soil. Someone then had an idea, couldn't forest fires cause increases in carbon? Forest fires are relatively rare they were told by everyone. They did a study in the Scottish highlands, wet, damp, not forest fires possible. They found there were hundreds of small forest fires caused by lightening strikes a year and turned the "scientific facts" on their heads. Pretty much the whole of climate change science is not measures of global temperatures but is the interpretation of other measures and might very well be erroneous. Then saying it is definitely caused by human activity is another leap with no evidence.
I kind of agree, but not so sure how I would feel about having a potential hydrogen bomb between my legs
WTF batteries, including manufacturing save at least 300 bright eyes per year, but 2000 dolphins 300 hundred children and 50,0000 daises die making everyone travel across the pond on a sail ship costs more than two weeks wages per person. I might add nothing in this post is real it’s all made up, but may end up on Facebook as factual
"The chemicals inside the battery begin to heat up, which causes further degradation of the separator. The battery can eventually hit temperatures of more than 1,000° F. At that point the flammable electrolyte can ignite or even explode when exposed to the oxygen in the air" Looks like we are buggered either way... in that case, hydrogen bring in on, if its going to explode lets have a big one
