Regarding my local paper and global warming..?
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...
Answer:
My response is that the opinion author is behind the times. Svensmark's theory has been disproven.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...
I'm not sure what he's babbling about, but I've heard about Svensmark's research dozens of times. He's not "the Al Gore" of anything. Svensmark is a scientist, Al Gore is a politician. Terrible analogy + out of date information = poorly written article.
Svensmark's theory was that increased solar activity was blocking cosmic rays which increase cloudcover and have a cooling effect. More solar activity = less cooling = global warming. However, Svensmark had not quantified this effect. It was just a theory - 'hey, maybe this is responsible for most of the global warming'. The problem is that solar activity turns out not to match up with the global warming increase.
His cosmic ray theory was the last hope for global warming deniers before it was disproven. Now there are no other plausible scientific explanations for the recent global warming - only human greenhouse gas emissions can account for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:clima...
http://www.illwillpress.com/topical.html...
exactly
write the Editor if you feel different & voice your opioion
Well considering he thinks that Global Climate change is being blamed on CO2 only, and makes reference to a guy whose hypothesis has already been debunked as a poor ignored victim of the global warming movement, I think I would view it as an article printed in a tabloid that has the same name.
If he was right, we would of heard of him before.
I'd say that global warming dogmatists would attack it, pretty much as you've seen here.
Plainly, you'll see that Dana's claim that Svensmark's hypothesis has been disproven is an outright lie.
Svensmark's hypothesis has two key features:
Muons, a type of galactic cosmic particle, create condensation nuclei around which clouds can form.
Solar winds deflect muons, preventing them from entering the atmosphere.
Lockwood measured cosmic particles, but FAILED to look at muons.
Lockwood measured solar magnetic flux, but FAILED to measure solar winds. (Magnetic flux and solar winds have related generating forces, but there is not a quantifiable relationship between the two.)
Svensmark, BTW, actually detected the formation of condensation nuclei from actual cosmic muons (ie, not in a particle accelerator and not with computer models.)
Now, if you can see how Lockwood FAILED to disprove the hypothesis, you're ahead of many astrophysicists...
...well, at least one.
And jj: "alarum" is a "call to arms". Brush up on your Shakespeare and realize that some folks write with a little panache - especially since this isn't a scientific journal.
BTW, you should have used "whose" instead of "who's", which makes no grammatical sense in your answer:
"guy who's hypothesis". I won't make any assumptions on your lack of scientific reasoning ability based on your spelling/grammar skills.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: