• Posts: 7,941
  • Tag points: 14

Topic: MIT Study of other stars & Global Warming

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25002/

Well this is what I have been saying for 6 years. Cosmic rays are the entirety of Climate issues.

Now the foremost tech school of the world says it in no uncertain terms!!!

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

2 Reply by thirdrock (edited by thirdrock 05-Apr-2010 05:11:07)

  • Posts: 2,261
  • Tag points: 186

Re: MIT Study of other stars & Global Warming

I don't think you understood the article.

>So Karoff's thinking goes like this. More coronal mass ejections in Earth's past lead to fewer cosmic rays hitting Earth which lead to less cloud cover. Less cloud cover meant that less sunlight would have been reflected back into space which would have allowed the surface to heat up.

Now go through and switch out more/less in the paragraph and you get this:

Less coronal mass ejections in Earth's present lead to more cosmic rays hitting Earth which lead to more cloud cover. More cloud cover means that more sunlight would be reflected back into space, allowing the surface to cool down. Which isn't happening.

This article is simply meant to provide one possible explanation for Sagan's Young Sun paradox, not an explanation for climate change.

Edit: Also, the study was conducted by the University of Birmingham and the theory proposed by one of the graduate students there. It wasn't even published in a scientific journal, only on MIT's school newspaper's blog.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,987
  • Tag points: 90

Re: MIT Study of other stars & Global Warming

In addition the conclusion is based on 2 assumptions that 2 different theories are correct. Which is similar to the way climate change works - asuming this theory on hwo things work then we can determine this. The author even states that there is a lack of true evidence to support the theories, or at least enough data to fully determine one way or the other.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but i am Jesus"
"Nothing is worse than a fully prepared fool"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points