• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CERN's CLOUD Experiment Highlights Pre-Industrial Climate and GCR's

Riiight. Nobody on the proponent side has researched anything new since the 1800s. Sure buddy. :lamo

There's been plenty of research, but the 19th century paradigm continues to impede understanding.

[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kuhn ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/.../bo13179781.html


University of Chicago Press


The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Thomas S. Kuhn is published by University of Chicago Press.
 
But Svensmark, of course, is immune to such things.

Svensmark and the small band following his path are the agents of the scientific revolution. If you have not read Kuhn's classic work, you should.
 
Svensmark and the small band following his path are the agents of the scientific revolution. If you have not read Kuhn's classic work, you should.

Or they might be the sentinels of the climatological equivalent of homeopathy.

You can't say someone is at the forefront of a scientific breakthrough if they haven't broken through anything.
 
Or they might be the sentinels of the climatological equivalent of homeopathy.

You can't say someone is at the forefront of a scientific breakthrough if they haven't broken through anything.

I have not used the word "breakthrough" but that will come.
 
Svensmark and the small band following his path are the agents of the scientific revolution. If you have not read Kuhn's classic work, you should.

And yet on a daily basis in this subforum I get called some kind of cultist.
 
A good explanation:



A discovery about how clouds form may scale back some of the more dire predictions about temperature increases caused by man-made global warming.
That’s because it implies that a key assumption for making such predictions is a bit off.
“What this will do is slightly reduce and sharpen the projections for temperature during the 21st century,” said researcher Jasper Kirkby.
Nonetheless, he added, “we are definitely warming the planet.”


Kirkby works at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, near Geneva. He is the lead author of one of three studies on the topic newly published by the journals Nature and Science.
Essentially, the work reveals a previously unknown natural process that creates atmospheric particles around which clouds form. The most common source of particles is air pollution, usually sulfuric acid from the burning of fossil fuels. There are also natural sources, but they have been considered far less important for cloud formation.
The new work shows that a combination of cosmic rays from space and gases emitted by trees also creates particles, and then clouds, without man-made pollution. The scientists witnessed this in a cloud simulation chamber and from a Swiss mountaintop observatory more than two miles high.
“This process is only effective in pristine environments, and there are very, very few pristine environments left on Earth,” Kirkby said. Nowadays, the process is overwhelmed by pollution particles.


To a layman, the significance of this for predictions of global warming may appear a bit, um, cloudy. But here’s how it works:
The computer models that are used to make those predictions require making assumptions about what conditions were like before industrialization, when the widespread burning of coal, oil and gas began pumping greenhouse gases into the air. Clouds are an important factor in this because they cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight back to space.








Nobody knows just how cloudy skies were in the old days. Scientists have figured there were far fewer clouds than now, Kirkby said. But the discovery of a new natural route to cloud formation suggests that cloud cover was, in fact, greater than scientists had assumed.


If so, greenhouse gases haven’t been quite as potent in producing warming as scientists thought. So, ton for ton, they also may not be quite as potent in producing future warming.
Kirkby said it’s too soon to tell how much less warming the new findings imply. Other recent studies found flaws in climate forecasts that would increase, not decrease, possible warming in the future.
A better understanding of clouds is good, but much more work is needed before scientists dial down warming estimates for the future, said Yale scientist Trude Storelvmo and NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel, who didn’t participate in the new work.
 
Yes, you linked that book you're plugging already. Your guys are all heroes of a new scientific cult or whatever. We get it.

There is no need for me (or anyone else) to "plug" the book. It has been and remains a classic. It is arguably one of the most important books published in the 20th century.
 
There is no need for me (or anyone else) to "plug" the book. It has been and remains a classic. It is arguably one of the most important books published in the 20th century.

Too bad only Svensmark et al read it.
 
Too bad only Svensmark et al read it.

I'm embarrassed for you. From the announcement of the University of Chicago Press Fiftieth Anniversary Edition:

[h=1]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[/h] [h=2]50th Anniversary Edition[/h]
9780226458113.jpeg


Thomas S. Kuhn
With an Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking

264 pages | 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 | © 2012

A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were—and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. Fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach.

With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation but that the revolutions in science, those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of “normal science,” as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age.

This new edition of Kuhn’s essential work in the history of science includes an insightful introduction by Ian Hacking, which clarifies terms popularized by Kuhn, including paradigm and incommensurability, and applies Kuhn’s ideas to the science of today. Usefully keyed to the separate sections of the book, Hacking’s introduction provides important background information as well as a contemporary context. Newly designed, with an expanded index, this edition will be eagerly welcomed by the next generation of readers seeking to understand the history of our perspectives on science.
 
I'm embarrassed for you.

And this copy/paste is supposed to explain why?

It probably does, to you anyway. But you're operating on a misunderstanding of what I said.
 
And this copy/paste is supposed to explain why?

It probably does, to you anyway. But you're operating on a misunderstanding of what I said.

If you are unaware of Kuhn then your education has been inadequate.
 
If you are unaware of Kuhn then your education has been inadequate.

Your misunderstanding is confirmed by this post. Thank you.
 
Your claim is that you are not as uninformed as your posts indicated?

No.

My claim is that I'm not as uninformed as your partisan bias has led you to believe.
 
Tsk tsk. No need for invective.

Tone fallacy. And further evidence of your bias. First you perceived ignorance without reason, and now you perceive invective where there is none.

Maybe this will illuminate the previous conversation and educate you on an important subject:
The Official Dictionary of Sarcasm: A Lexicon for Those of Us Who Are Better and Smarter Than the Rest of You: James Napoli: 9781402769528: Amazon.com: Books

Why tolerate ignorance? James Napoli, the executive vice president of the National Sarcasm Society, has provided an A-Z guide to turn to whenever you need to set someone straight. From advertisements to e-mail, from materialism to remote controls, there's a witty answer for every situation. “You have been waiting patiently for a dictionary like this to come along. And now it is here,” recognizes Napoli. “Not that you give a crap.”
 
Tone fallacy. And further evidence of your bias. First you perceived ignorance without reason, and now you perceive invective where there is none.

Maybe this will illuminate the previous conversation and educate you on an important subject:
The Official Dictionary of Sarcasm: A Lexicon for Those of Us Who Are Better and Smarter Than the Rest of You: James Napoli: 9781402769528: Amazon.com: Books

Why tolerate ignorance? James Napoli, the executive vice president of the National Sarcasm Society, has provided an A-Z guide to turn to whenever you need to set someone straight. From advertisements to e-mail, from materialism to remote controls, there's a witty answer for every situation. “You have been waiting patiently for a dictionary like this to come along. And now it is here,” recognizes Napoli. “Not that you give a crap.”

I doubt it. Your #39 and #41 exhibit real ignorance, and now you've fallen back on the universal fail-safe: "just joking." Sorry, but I'm not buying.
 
Back
Top Bottom