Hi Wiggys,
This might interest you. This link is regarding cosmic rays and the formation of clouds.
The Earths Magnetisphere has been rapidly weakening, it is the shield blocking those rays.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/n...
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

Hi skidance,
They realize, it just doesn't fit the narrative. But that is a good point. Keep in mind the pole is shifting rapidly.
What do you think about tree rings showing jet stream patterns? See my comment below.
Regards ,
DOB

These people are pseudo-scientists backed by ignorant NGOs. They have no patience to study the ever changing,weather that came before industry. They have a UN which is spurring them on and liberals wanting to use them to get power via control of people because of non-existent issues. Did you ever notice they usually want to control citizens and indusry, but not government. How about all those weather ontrol devices like HAARP or HAMP, which our, and many other government use to experiment with weather. They change the jet stream. They heat the ionosphere, they dump chemicals out of jets to accomplish HAMP. Yet, no mention or blame, and liberals just love to allow them to complain, without being held accountable.

I don't suppose they realize that parts of the Arctic had very little ice during Ice Ages....

since the sun is the primary controller of the weather on the planet therefore the source of the cold does come from the heat of the sun.

I check the spelling my error.
Stefan von Holtzbrinck and his half-siblings, Monika Schoeller and Dieter von Holtzbrinck, inherited publishing house Verlagsgruppe Holtzbrinck from their father Georg, who founded it as a book club in 1948.

Hotzbrink, eh? I collect German surnames for that World War One novel I'm working on.
"Hotz-brink." Say it aloud. Sounds like a good name for a villain who gets his.

I did a little search and found Popular Science was purchased in 2007 by a private Swedish co. Owned by the Bonnier family with media and publications interests in 16 countries .

The ridicules paper /article was penned for Nature Communications owned by the same German family (Hotzbrinck)hat also owns Scientific American both families are among the richest in the world. Davos types of the James Taggert ilk.

Look over here, not over there.

Aw, National Geographic's top people only want to be celebrated as PC and invited to all the ritzy big city cocktail parties whose armed security would not allow the NRA president to enter.

The left's narrative is the DOJ , FBI corruption charges and the memo are to distract from Trumps complicity when pressed on evidence they
Talk about the two obstruction charges that are no smoking gun.

I quit Nat Geo with the cover of A nine year old transgender boy/girl.

I am interested in
GE·og·ra·phy
jēˈäɡrəfē/Submit
noun
the study of the physical features of the earth and its atmosphere, and of human activity as it affects and is affected by these, including the distribution of populations and resources, land use, and industries.
the nature and relative arrangement of places and physical features.
plural noun: geographies
"knowing the geography and topology of the battlefield"
This from the horses mouth so to speak.http://http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/03/n...

Giving msnbc a glance a few days ago, I noticed Chris Hayes still talking about Trump's collusion with Russia.
He was completely ignoring all the new hot stuff about the corruption of the DOJ and the FBI as well as The Evil Hag paying for that dossier full of lies.

I actually told Smithsonian to cancel my subscription when that rag put it out that the USA was wrong for~oh, boo hoo hoo!~nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I added that the nuking may have saved up to a million American lives in an effort to make Japan surrender.
Some top Smithsonian official wrote back about how he was "good friends" with these guys "down the hall" who wrote the article. Like me dino could freaking care!
I no longer saw that libtard magazine in the mail. That's all I cared about. .

I have stopped National Geo and the Smithsonian for those same reasons. The constant drumbeat of man destroying the climate and planet. I'll pass on the pontification of those shrills.

You're right! The article was tripe.
More and more magazines are publishing meaningless garbage. I have to subscriptions up for renewal, and I'm not going to bother. I don't need to spend money on magazines with leftist propaganda. I can always tune into CNN for that. :)

Not to mention if that "high IQ" is the result of compartmentalization of bullcrap versus valid knowledge or Integration of valid knowledge...I'll stick with the latter regardless of the overall score.

After the "nuclear winter" caused by the asteroid or comet that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, me dino recalls reading about giant snakes bigger than during the dinosaur age 50 million years ago or so before the Ice Ages cranked up.
Today me dino sought to check out that super hot post-Mesozoic period and discovered this biased Popular Science tripe.
https://www.popsci.com/carbon-emissio...
Me dino used to subscribe to Popular Science until they had an article about Obama's predictions about the future.
It included two or three full page photos of a smiling King Barry in his supposed grandeur that really turned my stomach.
Very shortly thereafter me dino was asked to re-subscribe. No!
Overall, the magazine were turning lib crappy anyway.

What the left seems to forget to separate is "Environment". (as in the troposphere where we live) and "Climate" (long term weather patterns), have virtually nothing to do with one another.

Has, governments, bad regulations, bad bureaucracies, cronies, ignorant industrialist,(and I don't mean that in a negative way, there are lots of things we didn't and still don't know about the consequences of what we do on our local environment), and the effects of large city's, ruined our environment?...absolutely.
Has that changed the weather?...absolutely NOT!
Do the cities, black top highways, cement all over the place create temperature variations locally...Yes...does that change the weather?...NO it does not.

The other nonsense about how clouds and storms form by "evaporation" is just that...nonsense. Any humidity, temperature variations or localized evaporation does not cause rain storms. They create fog or that thick haze we see in the summers and that only is in the lowest parts of the troposphere.
Clouds, rain and storms are created at the tropospheric/stratospheric boundary layer and the main driver is cosmic radiation and solar radiation interactions with our ionosphere which creates hydrogen and oxygen which accumulates on natural aerosols in our stratosphere together with upper and lower atmosphere wind patterns. (as best as I understand it)

So, is it warming globally?..no. Has mankind caused some localized weather patterns (tornadoes) (strip mining of mountains) or (cities) to change...yes.

Has any of these things caused a major shift in climate patterns, mean temperature and cycles over time...NO.
The cycles come and go, just like they always have and we have yet to know nor account for all of them.

The task is hugely full of uncertainty. And when the lead researcher cores a tree that has one side that has obviously been shaded by another adjacent tree, as seen in the press release photo, that introduces a bias that has absolute nothing to do with the jet-stream, temperature, and precipitation. If Truett pre-selected trees that looked like, which she seems to be doing in the photo, she’s no better than the flawed science of the Yamal fiasco where a single tree biased the entire temperature record.

Further, it seems she didn’t pay attention to recent literature, such as Briffa and Melvin, 2011 and Brienen et al., 2012a,b

Basically, older trees grow slower, and that mimics the temperature signal paleo researchers like Mann look for. Unless you correct for this issue, you end up with a false temperature signal, like a hockey stick in modern times. Separating a valid temperature signal from the natural growth pattern of the tree becomes a larger challenge with this correction.…

Dendrochronologists observed that the older a tree was, the slower it tended to grow, even after controlling for age- and time-driven effects. The result is an artificial downward signal in the regional curve (as the older ages are only represented by the slower growing trees) and a similar artificial positive signal in the final chronology (as earlier years are only represented by the slow growing trees), an effect termed modern sample bias. When this biased chronology is used in climate reconstruction it then implies a relatively unsuitable historic climate. Obviously, the detection of long term 15 trends in tree growth, as might be caused by a changing climate or carbon fertilization, is also seriously compromised (Brienen et al., 2012b). More generally, modern sample bias can be viewed as a form of “differing-contemporaneous-growth-rate bias”, where changes in the magnitude of growth of the tree ring series included in the chronology over time (or age, in the case of the regional curve) skew the final curve, especially 20 near the ends of the chronology where series are rapidly added and removed (Briffa and Melvin, 2011).

" it moves" Is that the same thing as a shifty?
Point 3) for example, is a statement so vague that it can only have significance as rhetoric leading to a plea to do something about it. But there is no 'it'.

High, or low, IQ has no correlation to honesty, high IQ may confer the ability to concoct better lies.

'What do you get when you add energy to a chaotic system?'
The implication is you get more extremes, but more data points from the same population lead to more records being broken, more extremes. Thus, point not confirmed.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201...

" . .central Tokyo fell to a low of minus 4 degrees Celsius, the capital’s lowest figure in 48 years."
Fears of water pipes cracking from freezing.
" electricity usage was predicted to reach a level of 96 percent at the peak time slot,
50.5 million kilowatts versus the peak load capacity of 52.27 million."

Spot on! According to the Lefties everything that we do contributes to global warming, even eating a sandwich is a culprit now. The Weather Channel, which is as bad as CNN, states that when it is unseasonably cold, well, that's just weather, but when it's very hot like in July, then that is definitely climate change.

Another biased article from never-tell-the-truth-about-anything Bloomberg.
Look over the other tales on the Bloomberg "news" site and get a fuller understanding of biased, fake "news."

What do you get when you add energy to a chaotic system?

1. At STP, a fire of 500 F will never heat water past 212 F. Therefore, scientisits lie about thermodynamics.

2. Pluto was a planet. Then it was not. Now, it might be, again...
(Johns Hopkins U doctoral candidate's conference poster presentation here:
https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/03/16/make-p.... )
(Even NASA does not know.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstud... )

3. I have a relative who is a Born Again Christian. He is raising his children that way, of course. I saw a book in his home arguing against science. It showed a skieleton of a large herbivore dinosaur, like a brontosaurus, and then a recreation of that beast. It then showed a skeleton of a dog and next to it a Dr. Seuss-like cartoon of a dog, with purple tufts, etc. Scientists claim all kinds of things they cannot prove, said the book.

My point here is that taking one aspect of a complicated problem and its proposed solution(s), and arguing out of context, does not disprove the inititial assumptions. The easy assumptions - impossible to ignore are that (1) local weather changes (2) climate changes and (3) no less than the trees, human activity is affected by and in turn affects both local weather and global climate.

One of my liberal comrades who has 40 IQ points on me said that when he finally gets a conservative to agree to the facts about global warming, the response is to get more guns and go higher into the mountains. That is not quite my own response, but it is in the ballpark. My liberal comrade is sad because we lack "the political will" to do something about global warming. The other side of that coin is that he readily agrees that increased carbon dioxide will make the plants happy and we will have more food from some regions and that is good. So, for myself, I am not too concerned about the "lack of political will."

Nonetheless, it moves.
("Eppur si muove" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet...