Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
08-10-2011, 12:27 PM,
#16
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
Best get back to first principles.

If you burn MORE carbon, you put MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. True?

If there is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, then it retains and reradiates heat, causing the atmosphere to WARM. True?

ARE we burning more CO2? Yes?

Is the atmosphere warming? Yes?

Are there TIPPING POINTS (Arctic sea ice and polar land ice albedo, tundra methane, ocean clathrate methane) in the offing? Yes?

And YOU are stating that the IPCC's claims are all false, and there's NO global warming because they're all jobsworths? That so?

Bollocks. Just like 9-11, chemtrails, and all the other pseudosciences. Garbage. Crap.
Reply
08-10-2011, 02:21 PM,
#17
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
jr said:
Quote:If you burn MORE carbon, you put MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. True?

If there is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, then it retains and reradiates heat, causing the atmosphere to WARM. True?

ARE we burning more CO2? Yes?

Is the atmosphere warming? Yes?

Are there TIPPING POINTS (Arctic sea ice and polar land ice albedo, tundra methane, ocean clathrate methane) in the offing? Yes?

And YOU are stating that the IPCC's claims are all false, and there's NO global warming because they're all jobsworths? That so?


CO2 doesn't burn. If there is more CO2 in the air then plant growth is stimulated and plants give of oxygen and sequester carbon. A built in regulator ,if you will.
The atmosphere has been warming since the end of the last maunder minimum, there is no evidence to show that the warming going on is caused by anything other than the sun.
Are there tipping points?
Very astute of you to realize that the point is that the IPCC's major claims are false.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
08-24-2011, 05:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-24-2011, 10:42 PM by JazzRoc.)
#18
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
(08-10-2011, 02:21 PM)icosaface Wrote: CO2 doesn't burn.
ARE we burning more CARBON to make CO2? Yes?

Quote:If there is more CO2 in the air then plant growth is stimulated and plants give of oxygen and sequester carbon. A built in regulator, if you will.
Sure. Also the sea dissolves CO2.
Are you saying that CO2 is being taken up as fast as it is produced?
Can you prove that?

Quote:The atmosphere has been warming since the end of the last maunder minimum, there is no evidence to show that the warming going on is caused by anything other than the sun.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for claiming the sun has got warmer at all.

Quote:Are there tipping points?
Certainly. Arctic albedo should be apparent even to your blunted abilities. There are other ice albedo problems. Then there's gigatons of methane in tundra and submarine clathrates. Russian tundra's methane release rate is known to be increasing. Methane is 4x as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2.

Quote:Very astute of you to realize that the point is that the IPCC's major claims are false.
Have you recently been studying Goebbels, or what?

Nothing the IPCC has EVER produced is as false as the "science" in almost every conspiracy claim ever made here. They may not be the finest thing since sliced bread, but they sure ain't mouldy, with weevils.

Arguing that the Earth isn't warming at all when we are converting billions of tons of fossil carbon into atmospheric carbon dioxide year on year is NOT SANE. It's merely pseudoscience.

The corruption of people (happens everywhere, even here) makes no difference to what is REALLY HAPPENING to your (and my) environment in the meanwhile.

Reply
08-25-2011, 02:07 AM,
#19
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
jr said that we were burning more CO2 then when I corrected him he reponds irrelevantly with, "ARE we burning more CARBON to make CO2? Yes?
".

The brutal cold of the Maunder Minimum and the Great Irish Frost

Dennis Avery reminds us of just how painfully cold the Little Ice Age was (see below) and also pointed me to this excellent historical description: The Great Irish Frost of 1740, Longest Period of Extreme Cold in Modern European History Biot Report #442:July 13, 2007 An extraordinary climatic shock—the Great Frost—struck Ireland and the rest [...]

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?

The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating Dr. David Evans 6 October 2010 [A series of articles reviewing the western climate establishment and the media. The first and second discussed air temperatures, the third discussed ocean temperatures, and the fourth discussed past temperatures.







An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
08-25-2011, 05:24 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-25-2011, 06:18 PM by rsol.)
#20
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
i think ive pointed out the relationship of the sun to earth. ALL variables account for a 0.01% difference to surface temperatures. that is a fact.

Ice plays a significant role in global cooling. reflection of sun rays contributes to ice ages which can deforest the planet. such things can increase CO2 which is absorbed by the ice too(are we not forgetting? more ice, more to absorb) climatologists are quite aware of the carbon cycle. the release of CO2 can come from melting ice. this in aid brings on more melting of ice and yet more releases. This is coupled with volcanoes firing away. its all very well reading the data, its another to understand it. no scientist thinks they have climatology all wrapped up but those who deny global warming tend to be convinced they do. there is always something more to learn.

One last point. oppose carbon credits by all means but this way of basically crossing your arms and saying "NO i dont believe it" plays into the hands of those you are fighting...
Reply
08-26-2011, 02:28 PM,
#21
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
Those who contend that anthropological global warming is taking place aren't looking at the data or are cherry picking it and in some cases it appears that they have manufactured the data.

Jumping to the conclusion that we have a problem that we have to respond to when we don't have the data to support the conclusion is almost as ignorant as proposing solutions that won't make a significant difference in solving the problem but will devastate all the economies of the world . This is what the the IPCC is doing.





An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
08-26-2011, 07:17 PM,
#22
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
hmm so your real scare is that economically, its suicide....

can you give a basis for this conclusion?

I would like to explore this as i think its the main reason why so many economists seem to doubt climatology.
Reply
08-26-2011, 10:59 PM,
#23
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
No, my real scare is that our countries are run by retarded psychpathetic war criminals. Who doubts climatology? Specifically, who? I don't notice you refuting the data preented in this thread so you try to change the topic, what's up with that?
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
08-26-2011, 11:15 PM,
#24
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
well we have been running around such topics for ever. ive never seen anyone recognise any data from climatologists. even the basics are questioned.

However i feel that the main reason people doubt is not the science but a prevalent distrust for science and financial concerns. I dont think its really about the data at all... who has the best graphs? look at my pie chart!! i could disect it if you like but in general ive found even when we find the root, the thread disappears.

I know you are entrenched as am I. this is why i asked. you bring up an interesting point about the economics. im trying to get the root of the matter. give it a try. we know about carbon credits. lets see what we know about the problems and benefits (if any) this for me is the real problem.

We can carry on going round and round or we can look at the human issues here, when it all boils down, its humans that are the solution and the problem in this debate.
Reply
08-26-2011, 11:24 PM,
#25
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
No, no, that won't do. You don't have any data that shows that AGW is a significant factor in global warming, in fact you talk about "climate change" now instead of AGW. You act as though we are irresponsible creatures because we ask for the data that you say your decisions were based on.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
08-27-2011, 12:41 AM,
#26
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
On the economic point well I've made many in the past so I'll stop myself from being redundant so I'll use the words of another man, namely Steve Schneider.

Steve Schneider was found dead of an apparent heart attack even though he had no history of health problems and was reportedly in great physical condition. I personally think he looked a bit on the heavy side before his death but I wouldn't rule out the heart attack gun. Almost immediately he was considered a victim of a big oil conspiracy to murder and silence him.

He may well have been a victim of something nefarious, we'll never know, but it seems that although he was pro-AGW he was strongly against the Carbon-Dioxide credit plan. His voice would have carried a lot of weight in those circles as a respected climatologist and a charismatic figure but alas he is silent now. He did leave behind a legacy of report papers stating his opinion though.

Quote:Stanford climate scientist Steve Schneider dead at 65
19 July 2010

A scientist with a knack for communicating to the public dies Monday after a career that was both 'impressively long and all-too short.'

By Douglas Fischer

Daily Climate editor

Stanford climate scientist Stephen Schneider, one of the pre-eminent voices in the climate debate and a rare researcher who argued with wit and passion about the limits of climate science and the need for aggressive response, died Monday of an apparent heart attack while en route to London from a scientific conference in Stockholm. He was 65.

Over the course of his 40-year career, Schneider built the case that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has dire consequences for the globe. He also studied the policy implications of human-caused global warming, publishing some 400 articles on climate change and society's response.

"Steve did for climate science what Carl Sagan did for astronomy," wrote Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory atmospheric scientist Benjamin Santer.

"The pathway he chose - to be a scientific leader, to be a leader in science communication, and to fully embrace the interdisciplinary nature of the climate change problem - was not an easy pathway," Santer added. "Yet without the courage of leaders like Stephen Schneider, the world would not be on the threshold of agreeing to radically change the way we use energy."

Schneider advised every U.S. president from Nixon to Obama on global warming and was involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since the beginning. But his contributions extend "far, far beyond his superb science," as Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute in California, noted.

"Schneider was perhaps the most important communicator on climate science issues to the public and to policymakers," Gleick wrote

...
Full Article: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2010/07/steve-schneider-dead-at-65

Should also be noted that in the 1977 he made his name by predicting a new ice age OR global warming.

"we just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling— or when"

He was also quite critical of the IPCC protocol (2002):

I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming.

What could have been a good interview was scrubbed from the net as far as I can see. If you can find it post it.

Dr. Schneider talks about media distortions of climate research. Audio, November 2009.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/09/09-11schneider-audio.html

.. and here are some of his own:

tumetuestumefaisdubien Wrote:Almost everything in this science of CAGW is too overstated - in 1979 Stephen Schneider was telling us the CO2 will rise +20% at the end of century and in middle of 21st century "will double".

In fact now we have 2010 and CO2 have risen 13.7% since 1979, 5.5% since 2000. So he overstated the figure - 2.4 times than actually was the reality.

It reminds me the fishermen who show me using their hands how big the fish they caught was to win attention. It is more like an activism than a serious science...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=findpost&pid=10787988

Although an alarmist he was pushing his principles based on the potential risk not reality, he often mentioned tipping points but never really conclusive about them. He was always an advocate for what he proclaimed were win win scenarios for fuel efficiency, new technology and regulation of all polluting emissions not just CO2.

He was a popular and confrontational figure behind the veil.

JazzRoc is perhaps a Schneiderfan as he once reccommended a paper edited by him:
Gleick, P. H. 1996. Water Resources In encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, S. H. Schneider, ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Maybe he can tell us more on his stance on policy.

More on Carbon Exchanges here:

Chicago Climate Exchange: In Depth Profile
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35030

Cap and Trade 101
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=355

and on ICE
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
08-27-2011, 08:29 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-27-2011, 09:13 AM by rsol.)
#27
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
Quote:He may well have been a victim of something nefarious, we'll never know, but it seems that although he was pro-AGW he was strongly against the Carbon-Dioxide credit plan. His voice would have carried a lot of weight in those circles as a respected climatologist and a charismatic figure but alas he is silent now. He did leave behind a legacy of report papers stating his opinion though.
well apart from the charisma he sounds alot like me.

I think ive stated this before but:

I find that the extremes of the arguement do not relate to the subject. I dont believe its as bad as some say (al gore) i dont think we can change our system using carbon credits. It seems like lip service to the problem while filling pockets of middle men.

The economics actually make more sense for something of an energy revolution to happen. This does mean big players falling out of the sky though. It is in thier interest to feed doubt about this. we all know this.

So we now have 2 big players facing off on this subject. One status quo and the other looking to change power from the status quo to new players, old money to new. A third way has yet to really be discussed. That would involve the population telling these fucks to kiss our asses.

Personal power is the only way to defeat both the big industrial players and save ourselves.
Reply
08-28-2011, 01:43 AM,
#28
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
Noted that the polarized opinion gets us nowhere. Perhaps expanding the scope of debate to pollution and maybe a boycott/personal responsibility stance you know like boycotting military pollution would be a good start with depleted Uranium and Land Mines and the likes. Maybe the dumping of toxic industrial waste?

Regulation has proven ineffective because of its selective nature of enforcement and the industrial government committee turnstiles (aka revolving door) and hand slap "that's the cost of business" corporate policy.

Why not extend that to human safety while we're at it. Yes personal power is key.

The circular debate gets nothing done about anything. Climate change may not be reason to get anything done and the proposals are ridiculous but they are going ahead anyways via the corporate state autocracy. So in the meantime maybe support local manufacturing, local farming or something along those lines.



Back on topic it seems that Nature magazine will have to post these findings from the CERN statement. They admit the climate models are flawed, done deal .. let's move onto something we can do something about that we can see happening right before our eyes than this big giant maybe of a fear monger disaster in 100 - 1000 years that we can or cannot do something about that will cost trillions of dollars, take millions of peoples time and talent and deprive a good number of people the means of production in the name of this maybe problem and maybe solution. The only thing definitive about it is that it will cost a lot and require another layer of management, funding, law and enforcement (aka world government).

Yes, the yellow thing that hangs in the sky does have something to do with our earth's climate. Who knew?

Quote:CERN: “Climate Models Will Need To Be Substantially Revised”
By Bruce McQuain
August 26, 2011

The findings by CERN, which have finally been published in Nature magazine, are fairly explicit about the validity of current AGW models. They will need to be “substantially revised”.

Why?

Because the findings substantiates the fact that the sun plays the major role in our climate—and changes in the climate—rather than the human factors claimed by warmists. It’s all about the sun, clouds, cosmic rays, and nucleation.

CERN conducted a CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment to test a theory at odds with current warmist theories about cloud origins. As it turns out, the findings provide:

… [S]upport for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

Who knew that big yellow hot thing that hangs in the sky each day would play a major role in our climate?

Prior to publication of the Nature article, it had been assumed the findings were negative to warmist theories when the head of CERN (director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer) warned his scientists to just provide the facts, and not interpret them.

Here’s how CERN presented the data via lead physicist Jasper Kirkby:

Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability, but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.”

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

“We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.”

[…]

“[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.


Here is another unknown finally known. Yet the scientists on the warmist side tried to claim they had all the information they needed to build their models and make their wild claims. However, as more and more real science comes in, it becomes clearer and clearer that their work falls, at best, in the “junk science” category, and their claims are really unsubstantiated assertions. As we are finding out, their assertions are certainly not backed by science.

So, what should be taken from this?

A) the climate models are junk. Most observers have known this for quite some time. They are incomplete, their forcing data are all out of whack, and they not only can’t forecast the future, they can’t reproduce the past.

B) We’re really just now beginning to understand the climate and its dynamics. And, unsurprisingly for most, despite the warmists’ attempts to ignore it, the sun plays a major role in determining temperature on earth.

Seems like common sense to me. So why has it taken so long to finally surface?

As with all such things, follow the money.
http://www.conservativecommune.com/2011/08/cern-climate-models-will-need-to-be-substantially-revised/
http://twitter.com/FastTadpole/status/107613232914632704
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
08-30-2011, 02:09 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-30-2011, 02:14 AM by rsol.)
#29
RE: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
no no no. this isnt junk science. this is someone listening to cern say that yes some cloud seeding can be attributed to cosmic rays.

Quote:"However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.”

read what is said not just jump on little factors. small fraction of the observations, EVEN WITH ENHANCEMENT OF COSMIC RAYS!!!


Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

ALL THINGS MUST BE CONSIDERED. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT COSMIC RAYS? FUCK ALL!!! WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT VOLCANOES??

Im sick to death of some tiny piece of "evidence" yet to be substantiated turning into "the smoking gun" that anyone wanting to leave the planet a touch better off than when we left it as some money hungry creeps looking to crash world economies just for the hell of it.

what are you so afraid of?

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Horrific New Evidence Of China Organ Harvesting Revealed Ognir 3 788 03-05-2014, 12:35 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Video The IPCC Exposed drummer 5 609 09-29-2013, 04:03 PM
Last Post: Frank2
  NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere Defendfreedom 2 821 04-03-2013, 08:14 PM
Last Post: Watchdog
  GMO Researchers Attacked, Evidence Denied, and a Population at Risk h3rm35 3 1,629 09-20-2012, 10:22 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist TriWooOx 9 1,576 08-02-2012, 04:24 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
  Four fatal pieces of evidence icosaface 0 849 09-21-2011, 02:13 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  Forensic evidence emerges that e.coli superbug was bioengineered to produce fataliti TriWooOx 1 916 06-15-2011, 04:53 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Atmospheric Aerosols: Another Major IPCC Omission FastTadpole 4 1,966 05-25-2011, 07:29 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” TriWooOx 1 856 11-25-2010, 01:46 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Information Strong New Evidence H1N1 Vaccine Shows a Direct Link with Fetal Death FastTadpole 0 648 09-21-2010, 11:44 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)