GLOBAL COOLING? 60% MORE ICE?

[Blingy]

[AustinKZombie]

So to all of you people who think we have any impact, we don't. One volcano produces more cO2 then we do in ten years. Look at how little land we actually cover it is minuscule compared to the ocean. It pisses me off when you hear that we are heating up the globe. NO just no the earth goes thought uncontrollable cycles plus the sun is a factor to the sun spot intensity is now dropping again so the earth is cooling the sun plays the biggest factor in all of this.Yes it is good to burn less full and all of that but look the can control its self it is fundamentally unchange by human measures. ONLY one study has include the sun yet it plays such a big role so to anyone who believes we have an impact, WE DON'T so stop trying to be such a troll. 

[RankUpGamers]

Weather is a lie.

[nicehat]

I am not saying it is a conspiracy or anything silly like that, I am merely pointing out that there is so much they don't know and they should stop making specific predictions until they do know.  Otherwise everytime they open their mouth it will be just a little bit more evidence that they don't know what they talking about.

 

That is because if you read my post I didn't actually say  anything that was unture. Everything I said is an observation of what Governement paid scientist, govenment and other interested parties have said and what has actually happened.  Causality is still up for debate. 

 

The earth has a whole shit load more than a feed back system that effects the heating cooling effects.  What humans have done to reduce our impact on climate has been almost moot in terms of the net effect. CO2 is still going up, aerolsols are still going up, etc etc etc.

 

Try watching this all the way through, it's an hour I know but it's absolutely amazing. A great view into what we know and DON'T know about climate change. 

 

So before the floods the prediction was that they would never happen again and after the floods the reponses is "well of course we have floods, that's the result of global warming".  As I said, climate science is bevoming a self fulfiling prophecy.

 

 

I am not saying it is a conspiracy or anything silly like that, I am merely pointing out that there is so much they don't know and they should stop making specific predictions until they do know.  Otherwise everytime they open their mouth it will be just a little bit more evidence that they don't know what they talking about.

 

 

 

Insults are the last resort of a failed argument.

 

 

You ARE a conspiracy theorist. You claim that the government pays off scientists to do this pro global warming research. If you knew anything about research, youd know that ALL acedemic research is paid by the government in some sort way or form. Listen, you basically know nothing. You dont want to look at the facts, and you want to sit there and broadcast with your tin hat about how the government is behind all this, and that there is some sort of agenda. Why dont you make this argument against all research that is funded by the government? Cancer? AIDS research? NASA? Go on, you're on a roll.

 

 

You insult humanity with your stance and arguments. 

[Vitalius]

You ARE a conspiracy theorist. You claim that the government pays off scientists to do this pro global warming research. If you knew anything about research, youd know that ALL acedemic research is paid by the government in some sort way or form. Listen, you basically know nothing. You dont want to look at the facts, and you want to sit there and broadcast with your tin hat about how the government is behind all this, and that there is some sort of agenda. Why dont you make this argument against all research that is funded by the government? Cancer? AIDS research? NASA? Go on, you're on a roll.

 

 

You insult humanity with your stance and arguments. 

Why must you be so emphatically hostile?

[nicehat]

Why must you be so emphatically hostile?

 

This is dangerous thinking. This is not a debate. These are opinionated people that refuse to even consider the research for this issue. This guy for instance insinuates that its a conspiracy stirred up by the government (even though he tries to categorically deny it). You? You were arguing semantics with me earlier. You didnt bring anything to the debate. No one... NO one is bringing objective reasoning or counter arguments with real evidence. Not hearsay or opinion but REAL evidence. Why dont the opponents bring up some research that proves the contrary? Why dont they bring any experts' opinion to add to this debate? So far I see none. Just a bunch of yahoos that shoot first and forget to ask questions. Why should level minded people accommodate their opinion? 

[mr moose]

You ARE a conspiracy theorist. You claim that the government pays off scientists to do this pro global warming research. If you knew anything about research, youd know that ALL acedemic research is paid by the government in some sort way or form. Listen, you basically know nothing. You dont want to look at the facts, and you want to sit there and broadcast with your tin hat about how the government is behind all this, and that there is some sort of agenda. Why dont you make this argument against all research that is funded by the government? Cancer? AIDS research? NASA? Go on, you're on a roll.

 

 

You insult humanity with your stance and arguments. 

Again, if you cannot argue without being insulting then one must consider you cannot be impartial or open minded.

 

You have no idea how many peer reviewed articles I have read, you have no idea what my education is, you have no idea what my ideals are. You don't even know what my stance is on global climate change is because I did not state it.  You make an assumption that I am a conspiracy theorist simply because of my observations, NOTE: they are observations, not opinions or conclusions I have decided must be true without research but actual observation of a series of events that actually occured. If they were making the same predictions and claims about cancer, aids or any other government funded research then I would claim the same about those. But they aren't and for the record most research into health is done by pharmaceutical companies and Universities, with government grants which is completely different to organisation like the CSIRO which is soley government.  

 

 

Why must you be so emphatically hostile?

 

Because it seems he hasn't got an argument just an opinion.

[nicehat]

Anyone who has been around for 40 years or more with half a brain will know just how much bull dust these governement bodies push trying to use science as leverage for their obvious other agendas.

 

I have met farmers who have predicted long term wheather patterns better than the BOM.

 

/rant   everyone can go back to being bamboozled with government BS and hippy propoganda now.

 

First, let me say that this is the kind of talk that would come from a schizophrenic individual. You are blatantly saying that this is a conspiracy. Then you go on and try to cover your ass with this:

 

I am not saying it is a conspiracy or anything silly like that, I am merely pointing out that there is so much they don't know and they should stop making specific predictions until they do know.  Otherwise everytime they open their mouth it will be just a little bit more evidence that they don't know what they talking about.

 

You have done a very good job on broadcasting your opinion. Why is this an opinion? You are saying that it is Obvious that it is a conpiracy thrown together by the govt. And if that half brained comment wasnt insult enough, You then go and insult anyone who thinks otherwise by saying that we can go continue getting bamboozled by the Governments "BS" and propaganda..

 

Wow.. well if that isnt an opinionated individual, then I dont know what is. You have made it quite clear that you think that global warming due to man made mechanisms is bull. Your thinly veiled attempts to backtrack and cover your ass by saying these are observations and not opinions doesnt fool anyone except your delusions. 

 

And about your background and education. I dont remember making any assertions about who you are and what youve done, what matters is what you said. You have definitely made an impression 

 

And about research. Academia thrives off Government grants. The government chooses what should be or deserves to be researched and what doesnt. Private companies can fund their own research, but to say that "most research" is done this way shows me that you fail to grasp how things are done. 

[Vitalius]

This is dangerous thinking. This is not a debate.

...

You? You were arguing semantics with me earlier. You didnt bring anything to the debate. No one... NO one is bringing objective reasoning or counter arguments with real evidence. Not hearsay or opinion but REAL evidence. Why dont the opponents bring up some research that proves the contrary? Why dont they bring any experts' opinion to add to this debate?

Hmm, you are a very confusing person then. First you say it is not a debate, then say it is. 

On top of that, you say all that about me and everyone else, when, as I go back to read every one of your posts in this thread, all you have done is insult and spout opinion in all ways, except for giving one of the reasons why it is a conservative vs liberal debate. The rest is just you bashing others. 

I could go on, but that is enough for me. When people are such blatant hypocrites, I tend to ignore their posts as it makes logical sense that if they are so blind to such obvious hypocrisy, coming from themselves even, then anything I have to say or show them will do nothing as they will be deaf/blind to it just the same. 

 

Again, if you cannot argue without being insulting then one must consider you cannot be impartial or open minded.

 

Because it seems he hasn't got an argument just an opinion.

I agree completely.

[nicehat]

I could go on, but that is enough for me. When people are such blatant hypocrites, I tend to ignore their posts as it makes logical sense that if they are so blind to such obvious hypocrisy, coming from themselves even, then anything I have to say or show them will do nothing as they will be deaf/blind to it just the same. 

 

 

Ahh the peanut gallery. 

[eshbop]

I just don't think that 98% of climate scientists, most of which are independent, could be wrong and human activity doesn't play a role in climate change, though you never know. Variables that influences climatic systems are so numerous and varied it seems odd that causative increases of CO2 produce such a simple relationship with increasing surface temperatures, forming a large basis to the human induced change hypothesis, despite all the other factors at work.

 

Man made or not the earth has been a lot warmer, had much greater concentrations of CO2 and sea levels have been a lot higher than they are today. In terms of altering such a dynamic system I have a feeling that humans may consider themselves to be more influential than they really are and the inherent need to fix what we've screwed makes it almost a likeable idea with the perceived threat to the planet being somewhat over stated. Also having the global authority on climate change (IPCC) primarily acting as a governmental policy advisor is a bit sketchy. Still, if it means the widespread use of renewable energies comes sooner then it's a good thing.

[mr moose]

First, let me say that this is the kind of talk that would come from a schizophrenic individual. You are blatantly saying that this is a conspiracy. Then you go on and try to cover your ass with this:

 

 

You have done a very good job on broadcasting your opinion. Why is this an opinion? You are saying that it is Obvious that it is a conpiracy thrown together by the govt. And if that half brained comment wasnt insult enough, You then go and insult anyone who thinks otherwise by saying that we can go continue getting bamboozled by the Governments "BS" and propaganda..

 

Wow.. well if that isnt an opinionated individual, then I dont know what is. You have made it quite clear that you think that global warming due to man made mechanisms is bull. Your thinly veiled attempts to backtrack and cover your ass by saying these are observations and not opinions doesnt fool anyone except your delusions. 

 

And about your background and education. I dont remember making any assertions about who you are and what youve done, what matters is what you said. You have definitely made an impression 

 

And about research. Academia thrives off Government grants. The government chooses what should be or deserves to be researched and what doesnt. Private companies can fund their own research, but to say that "most research" is done this way shows me that you fail to grasp how things are done. 

Clearly no idea.

If you think the government doesn't lie to you or bend the figures to promote certain agendas then you are naive. 

 

I see you haven't learnt how to discuss without insulting.   Perhaps you should watch the video I posted from CERN, If you think I am schizophrenic maybe you think they are too.

[Vitalius]

Ahh the peanut gallery.

I only give what I am given. If a "show" only deserve a peanut gallery, then the peanut gallery is what it shall have.

 

I just don't think that 98% of climate scientists, most of which are independent, could be wrong and human activity doesn't play a role in climate change, though you never know. Variables that influences climatic systems are so numerous and varied it seems odd that causative increases of CO2 produce such a simple relationship with increasing surface temperatures, forming a large basis to the human induced change hypothesis, despite all the other factors at work.

 

Man made or not the earth has been a lot warmer, had much greater concentrations of CO2 and sea levels have been a lot higher than they are today. In terms of altering such a dynamic system I have a feeling that humans may consider themselves to be more influential than they really are and the inherent need to fix what we've screwed makes it almost a likeable idea with the perceived threat to the planet being somewhat over stated. Also having the global authority on climate change (IPCC) primarily acting as a governmental policy advisor is a bit sketchy. Still, means the widespread use of renewable energies comes sooner then it's a good thing.

Agreed.

Clearly no idea.

If you think the government doesn't lie to you or bend the figures to promote certain agendas then you are naive. 

 

I see you haven't learnt how to discuss without insulting.   Perhaps you should watch the video I posted from CERN, If you think I am schizophrenic maybe you think they are too.

To be fair, the line between genius and insanity is oh so thin.

[mr moose]

I just don't think that 98% of climate scientists, most of which are independent, could be wrong and human activity doesn't play a role in climate change, though you never know. Variables that influences climatic systems are so numerous and varied it seems odd that causative increases of CO2 produce such a simple relationship with increasing surface temperatures, forming a large basis to the human induced change hypothesis, despite all the other factors at work.

 

Man made or not the earth has been a lot warmer, had much greater concentrations of CO2 and sea levels have been a lot higher than they are today. In terms of altering such a dynamic system I have a feeling that humans may consider themselves to be more influential than they really are and the inherent need to fix what we've screwed makes it almost a likeable idea with the perceived threat to the planet being somewhat over stated. Also having the global authority on climate change (IPCC) primarily acting as a governmental policy advisor is a bit sketchy. Still, if it means the widespread use of renewable energies comes sooner then it's a good thing.

 

 

Pretty much exactly what I think.  As the video I posted earlier shows (not that many peole have an hour to watch a lecture from CERN).  They point out that there are a lot of unkowns and while some of the assumptions made by the IPCC are fair, they do not correlate with other as yet unkown factors, like cloud formation and the role it plays.  It is an awefull complicated science and one which is heavily corrupted by lobbyists on all sides.  No one wants to admit the truth because to do so means loosing the battle. 

[nicehat]

Clearly no idea.

If you think the government doesn't lie to you or bend the figures to promote certain agendas then you are naive. 

 

 

The tin hat might be on a bit too tight. The lack of blood is making your opinions stupid. Indulge us, please, on the agendas of the government as it pertains to making a more environmentally friendly atmosphere.

 

Psst....You've hit rock bottom, anything you say after this will make you look better trust me.

[mr moose]

To be fair, the line between genius and insanity is oh so thin.

I like to think I am merely an impartial/logical thinker and not so much insane nor genius.

[mr moose]

The tin hat might be on a bit too tight. The lack of blood is making your opinions stupid. Indulge us, please, on the agendas of the government as it pertains to making a more environmentally friendly atmosphere.

 

Psst....You've hit rock bottom, anything you say after this will make you look better trust me.

:rolleyes:

[nicehat]

I only give what I am given. If a "show" only deserve a peanut gallery, then the peanut gallery is what it shall have.

 

However you judge the show, you're still riff raff  

[Canoas]

Again, if you cannot argue without being insulting then one must consider you cannot be impartial or open minded.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what this is, this is not an argument or debate. There is so much easily accessible information about global warming at this point that debating it is pointless, either you want to be educated and you can just find all the information by yourself or you simply don't. Nothing we can say will change your mind because you're just too dense to understand predictions are never exact, you're like the dudes in italy who were trying to convict 7 of their most brilliant geology experts for mass murder because they failed to predict an earthquake. If you want a 100% accurate prediction you'll never get it, even a weather prediction of what'll happen next week is practically impossible. However, there is substancial evidence to prove that we are in fact having an impact on this planet and we either start caring about the environment and minimize our impact or we don't. If we choose the first then if the predictions are true we survive and if they're false we still get a better planet to live in, if we choose the latter then if the predictions are true we get wiped out and if they're false and we live we'll still have a shit planet to live in. This is not just a matter of opinions, you actually have an impact in our planet be it through your daily actions or through who you vote for, and as such I feel that it's everyone's right to insult you and if you don't want to be insulted then stop fucking things up. Again, there's no argument here, only two sides where one's right no matter what and another is wrong. Even if global warming is complete utter bullshit created by the illuminati just to troll everyone YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

[threadysparrow]

If it is true that there is 60% more ice at the caps in only 1 year then we have a really serious problem on our hands if that's the case. If in 1 year the earth is able to cool that much, then a catastrophe has already happened and we are headed for global destruction.

 

But that is not the case. There isn't 60% MORE ice in the ocean than last year at the same time, the ice caps are not 60% colder. Ice is just covering more area which means that the oceans' salinity and alkalinity is being changed from AGW.

[mr moose]

I think you're misunderstanding what this is, this is not an argument or debate.

I am not debating anything, why do you think I am? I am merely pointing out facts.

 

 

There is so much easily accessible information about global warming at this point that debating it is pointless, either you want to be educated and you can just find all the information by yourself or you simply don't. Nothing we can say will change your mind because you're just too dense to understand predictions are never exact, you're like the dudes in italy who were trying to convict 7 of their most brilliant geology experts for mass murder because they failed to predict an earthquake. If you want a 100% accurate prediction you'll never get it, even a weather prediction of what'll happen next week is practically impossible.

 

You would think that a scientist should know what you have just said, However it was a scientists who said the floods would "never happen again" and that "queensland will be permanently in drought".

 

These are quotes, not my opinion.  Don't call me dense becasue a scientist has made out a prediction to be 100% and was wrong.  They made the mistake, not me. I just observed the mistake and judge them for it.  I really don't see what those italians have got to do with me, it sounds like you have a preconception about me that you need to support with random inferences.

 

 

However, there is substancial evidence to prove that we are in fact having an impact on this planet and we either start caring about the environment and minimize our impact or we don't. If we choose the first then if the predictions are true we survive and if they're false we still get a better planet to live in,

 

I never said there wasn't, My whole beef in this discussion is that the informantioon is being distorted. somewhere between the research and politions the data has been changed to suit policy, rather than policy being chagnge to suit the data. I have only posted a list of events that have occured in our political history that included the CSIRO and their "highly accurate" predictions.  It is evident that there is a whole other agenda here, because when I speak to scientists in the field (Yes I do, first hand experience with the BOM data collection and climate research) there is an absolute discrepency between the data we find and the data used to support government policy.

 

 

 if we choose the latter then if the predictions are true we get wiped out and if they're false and we live we'll still have a shit planet to live in.

My point is that there is no real choice for us, the decision has been made for us by the governments of the world.

 

 

This is not just a matter of opinions, you actually have an impact in our planet be it through your daily actions or through who you vote for, and as such I feel that it's everyone's right to insult you and if you don't want to be insulted then stop fucking things up. Again, there's no argument here, only two sides where one's right no matter what and another is wrong. Even if global warming is complete utter bullshit created by the illuminati just to troll everyone YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

 

I never said this was not the case, You guys need to drop the ideals a bit, humanity is a selfish, survival driven beast and the state of the planet is secondary to a lot of other things,  there is no need to be insulting, that just makes you as bad as the extremem lobyists for and against action on climate change.  I have been around long enough to know that the science is NEVER settled, we are always wrong about something and thus insulting people for holding a different belief, coming to a different conclusion or simply not caring is counter productive and in some cases represents an inability to compile a constructive sentence to support a proposition or standing.

 

 

On a personal note, I would liked to have had a rational discussion about this, but it appears some people here are incapable of accepting a few realities about the current political landscape and how that effects the science of climate change.  Even after I post a video that sums up my beliefs from one of the worlds most respected institutes, people still choose to label me a conspiracy theorist that has a mental condition.  Have you made your mind up that I don't understand the science? when you don't even know my educational or vocational background? 

[Vitalius]

I never said this was not the case, You guys need to drop the ideals a bit, humanity is a selfish, survival driven beast and the state of the planet is secondary to a lot of other things,  there is no need to be insulting, that just makes you as bad as the extremem lobyists for and against action on climate change.  I have been around long enough to know that the science is NEVER settled, we are always wrong about something and thus insulting people for holding a different belief, coming to a different conclusion or simply not caring is counter productive and in some cases represents an inability to compile a constructive sentence to support a proposition or standing.

 

 

On a personal note, I would liked to have had a rational discussion about this, but it appears some people here are incapable of accepting a few realities about the current political landscape and how that effects the science of climate change.  Even after I post a video that sums up my beliefs from one of the worlds most respected institutes, people still choose to label me a conspiracy theorist that has a mental condition.  Have you made your mind up that I don't understand the science? when you don't even know my educational or vocational background? 

This guy gets it^.

[nicehat]

I went through the video, and this is what I have to say about it. 

 

@ 3:00 thereabouts he explicitly says that this is all undigested raw information. The connection of the cosmos and the clouds is not known to be fact as of 2008-2009. 

 

@8:17 He expresses that the ensuing talk is NOT an established fact of the universe. The process of weather cosmic rays affect cloud formation and by extension the global warming phenomenon is UNKNOWN.

 

After watching the video, I looked up his paper and the author's publications in various scientific journals. One such journal Nature ( a weekly international journal of science) noted that to clear up the purpose of his findings, Kirkby added in his abstract

 

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step,"

 

*******In addition this CERN experiment only tests 1/3 of 1/4 (read that again) of the requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. At least two of the other requirements [of the 1/3 of 1/4 factors] (increased solar magnetic field, fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth) have not been met over the past 50 years. Kirby explicitly goes on to say in his findings that it "actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."  Many other studies have concluded that cosmic rays play a minor role in cloud formation, and have not contributed in any significant way to the global warming over the past 50 years (SEE SOURCES AT END FOR THESE).********

 

If you want to really know what his paper means and does not mean

 

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

A paper by Erlykin et al (2013) examines the prelim CLOUD results:

 

"Taken at face value the CLOUD results would indicate an increase in nucleation rate of about 3 orders of magnitude in going from the equator to a latitude of 80. Even allowing for various reductions due to ‘sinks’ (Kirkby 2012, private communication), a big change should surely follow.

 

A search for the latitude dependence of the [cosmic ray, low cloud] correlation, or the related dependence on the [cosmic ray] vertical rigidity cut-off (VRCO), gave negative results (Sloan and Wolfendale 2008), and indeed, this was one of the rst demonstrations of the lack of a genuine  [cosmic ray, low cloud] correlation. A latitude dependence of the correlation was not detected at any altitude, in fact. Thus, the expected big change with latitude for H2SO4 nucleation anywhere is not observed." which is what he talks about in the video that you posted. Now that thats done, I have some questions of my own. 

 

 

 

First, why have you not done this. Why have you not looked up the fact that none of these results say anything equivocal about anything? And If youd known that, how is this video a good representation of your opinion? It tells me you either dont understand whats going on, or you are a firm believer in ignorance is bliss.  You seem pretty cavalier with your views and your ideas of conspiracy bring me to think that you are either a troll, or actually deluded...but I said that already. You drive your conspiracy argument and use this youtube video as the source of your schizoid argument. This is a smart guy, but to use his work as a basis for your delusions is insane. I say get back on your meds. 

 

The fact is that you refuse to entertain arguments for global warming as is evident in your first post. Again, you dismiss everyone who doesnt think there is a CLEAR conspiracy. How do you come to this? Through your extensive interactions with climate data? With your exclusive conversations with farmers? Anyone that doesnt believe you or sides with you is clearly under govt propaganda and being bamboozled (not to mention half a brain). 

 

Anyone who has been around for 40 years or more with half a brain will know just how much bull dust these governement bodies push trying to use science as leverage for their obvious other agendas.

 

/rant   everyone can go back to being bamboozled with government BS and hippy propoganda now.

 

 

You keep talking about government agendas. But you refuse or cant tell me what those "obvious" agendas are. Go on, stop dancing around the question, What are these agendas? Why would western governments drive for a more environmentally friendly atmosphere for all of us to enjoy? Matter of fact, your right, that sounds waaaay too diabolical and conniving to me. 

 

Now, I actually dont care about who you are and how sweet you think you are with this subject, or what your day job is. But if you want to act like the impartial, logical thinker you see yourself as then you will read up on these as I have done. These are Papers, not youtube videos so your attention span may be challenged, but if you do, you will find that there are categorical arguments that bring evidence against the CLOUD project. Again re-read the paragraph indented with ******** before you grace humanity with more of your "opinions"

 

Calogovic, J., et al. (2010): Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03802, doi:10.1029/2009GL041327.

 

Erlykin, A.D., et al (2009): Solar activity and the mean global temperature. Environmental Research Letters, 4, 014006, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014006.

[LancerBG]

I love the source...

[Lyons]

You're now arguing with BOTH of the biggest religious posters on the forum, don't waste your time.