Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report

reply to post by letscit

the position the man in the video is taking is that the heliosphere and magneticsphere

Low solar activity results in a lessened solar wind. This does represent a contraction of the heliosphere. This contraction does allow cosmic rays to penetrate further into the Solar System but it does not allow "solar wind from the galaxy/universe" to do so. There has been much study on the effects of cosmic rays on climate but no link has yet been established. The idea is that cosmic rays help the formation of clouds. So far research has not demonstrated this to be true.

seems its time to reference information, then cross reference then see who they work for, then follow the money.

Nobody works for free. Research takes money. "Following the money" will lead you to chasing your tail. There are agendas but science is science and eventually it comes up with answers. To just say "they lie" is pointless.

I like this guy and he has a very good track record to back him up, not to mention he is a professor and has been predicting climate and weather patterns since the age of 5. the page of his I am linking too seems like an infomercial webpage but he is selling nothing. he actually challenges the bbc and met-office to a public televised and radio debate. in essence he is putting his money where his mouth is, will he get any takers?

WEATHER ACTION is 100% confident that there is no evidence for man-made Climate Change in real observed

data. WE CHALLENGE THE BBC AND MET-OFFICE TO PUBLIC TV and Radio DEBATE ON THEIR CLAIMS

IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE THE UN IPCC and all it stands for must be destroyed.“

here is their article and counter claim to the ipcc.
www.weatheraction.com...

lots of good climate information in this article.

thanks for awesome information and patience with me phage. I agree about the lies and the chasing of my tail. just seems to me to be in everyones/humanities best interest to get to the bottom of this and find the truth. really appreciate trying to educate me than to berate me. will be checking back on this thread and contributing as much as I can to also try and educate when I can. thanks.

reply to post by letscit

A Professor? You mean a teacher? No he isn't. His only credential is a first-class honors degree in physics. That is an undergraduate degree, the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science in the US. The "first-class" means he had a 70% or higher grade.

His "track record" is based on his own statements. Sort of a "Piers review" system.

in essence he is putting his money where his mouth is, will he get any takers?

What money? All he wants is attention and he has nothing to lose. But no, Because no one pays any attention to him anymore. Even Anthony Watts (a devoted denier) says "what?"
wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by Phage


phage we get it.

You dont agree and are in line with climate doom...unless we do something about it now...

OK

reply to post by tadaman

You didn't read the report, did you?

one thing I keep finding is that warming precedes a cooling period or ice ages. I have even heard reason for this. cant find article right now but will try tomorrow.
but the reasons for the warming and then cooling is from ocean currents mainly the gulf stream to the artic and when the glaciers melt they dump massive amounts of fresh water from melting into the ocean. as this continues it disrupts the natural conveyor of the oceans currents which depends on the high salt concentration to keep this conveyor of warm water toward the north moving. when this conveyor is over saturated with freshwater it disrupts the conveyor and warm water stops returning to the artic.
I feel kinda stupid for not knowing if this is true or possible but seems plausible to me. this is the one explanation I keep reading about when I hear of a cooling trend coming because the warmer weather causes this to happen. which would lead to cycles and why the ice cores show these cycles.
seems like a solid theory to me but not knowing much about ocean currents not sure how accurate this could be.

reply to post by Phage


Yes I did,

I read allot of material on this, have for some years now

According to many if not more people....this is BS.

Dont Assume anything just because we dont agree

This BS has been offered for several years now....and its old.

EDIT:

The best you will do is give us a run around of this or that source...this or that person from bill nye the science guy (or bill the mechanical engineer) to David Rothschild.

I am so sick of it. The world will not end if we dont treat climate hell like a terrorist is chucking babies and puppies out a window because we dont fall in line with pseudo science.

reply to post by tadaman

Ok. My apologies.

Can you tell me what the "it" is that we have to do "now"? Can you tell me more about the "doom" part?

Oh. Sorry. I see you edited that part out. The thing is, I can't seem to find any hysterics in the report.

reply to post by Phage


what do you think will happen if we do nothing?

reply to post by Phage


now that is what I was searching for on him. thanks for that information. yes that link does seem to be more of him saying how right he has been rather than showing how others agree how accurate he has been. im gonna keep digging but go for now. will check back tomorrow.
phage I like how you always come back with some good educational material to help your point of view, keeps my gears turning and I remember educational discussions for all on ats. its much better than the bickering. I will try to come up with something that gives you pause, and gets your gears turning.

hope someone can answer the theory I tried to present about the oceans current and earths cycles.
nite ats

I ran the new math....and man's contribution is one tenth of one percent ambient co2, time to rephrase the cause of this apparent warming, I subscribe to the school thought that mankind is incapable of affecting this large closed system ....which seems to clean itself, men.....

reply to post by letscit


take a look at this.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...


CERN conducted an experiment on how cosmic rays affect cloud formation. Basically the more clouds the cooler the earth is. They proved that the earths climate is directly linked to the suns magnetic field since it regulates how much cosmic radiation reaches earth.

The experiment ISNT the final nail in the coffin of doomsday climate debate...BUT it addresses one of at least four factors that would tell us definitively if we or the sun are to blame for climate change.

That said. Just use common sense.

EDIT:
and this for context of the bias.

BREAKING: NASA U-TURN ADMITS GLOBAL WARMING BIAS ON SUN’S KEY ROLE

Written by John O'Sullivan

In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.

principia-scientific.org...

reply to post by tadaman

I think the average global temperature will continue to rise. I don't think the changes that we will see in climate this century will be catastrophic (hope I'm right) but I have no doubt that major changes in weather patterns will be seen. I don't think the precise nature of those changes can be, as yet, predicted but any such change is bound to disrupt current economic, political, and social systems to a degree.

reply to post by tadaman

CERN conducted an experiment on how cosmic rays affect cloud formation.

Yes. And so far they have found no indication that cosmic rays can influence the formation of clouds.
The lead researcher on the CLOUDS experiment:

But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "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," he says.

www.nature.com...

reply to post by Phage


But here is where I disagree with you.

I think it COULD change abruptly. The science across many disciplines shows that it has in the past.

I dont however, think it is a man made problem. We have lacked in MANY areas, but we arent in a hollywood movie where that clutch moment calls for the "specialist scientist" to demand we build a drill or a rocket.....or what ever,.

We are just here for the ride.

Where all this climate alarmism industry should spend the trillions in public money they have seen over the years is on food production and infrastructure.

We arent going to stop the warming or the cooling. These cycles are there for a reason and we shouldnt even consider tampering with a working system. We need to think about survival and promoting a realistic way to feed billions of people while the weather is still nice.

We may have 1000 years or ten. What ever the case may be no matter the direction the mercury goes....we need to change the way we feed ourselves.

Phage
reply to post by pheonix358

 

Not hard to find out but since you can't seem to be bothered to look or read the report, here ya go.
www.ipcc.ch...

edit on 9/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Excellent. Effectively it is the government and the US puts in a great deal of it.

Now, do you trust your Government. I don't! I don't trust any Government in the modern era.

That taints these reports to the extent that they are tainted by big money. Just look at what NASA has said. Jeez, it is not hard to tell that there is money in black gold, oil, oops, sorry, I must modernize my thoughts.

There is money in them there black carbon credits, carbon gold. Or should that be diamonds.

P

reply to post by Phage


Like I said it is not the definitive end to this argument.

BUT the experiment most certainly shows that: we know that the sun regulates cosmic radiation.....and that those particles are the most important aspect of cloud seeding on earth.


You can continue to argue your side and I my own. I dont really care. There are as many highly educated and prestigious minds on either side.

Meanwhile the earth will not end.

I asked.

What do you think will happen if we do nothing?


EDIT:

ALso your "source" is a little outdated.

Here is something from this year.

notrickszone.com...

ORF: What is the relationship between solar activity and cosmic radiation?

Kirkby: Cosmic radiation consists of high energy, charged particles. When they reach our solar system, they are deflected away by the magnetic field of the sun. Foremost by the magnetic field of the solar plasma. When the sun is active, less cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. The relationship to the solar cycle: When there are many sunspots, the Earth receives 10 – 30% less cosmic radiation.

Is this relationship sure?

Yes, it is solidly confirmed. We also know that cosmic radiation ionizes every cubic centimeter of the Earth’s atmosphere. Unsure so far is whether or not this also could have a climatic impact. Clouds are extremely important for the Earth’s climate. If I could magically eliminate all clouds from the atmosphere, then 30 watts of additional heat energy would reach every square meter of the Earth.

To put this number into context: The warming of the atmosphere through the impacts of man is currently pegged at 1.5 watts per square meter. Small variations in cloud cover could have large impacts.

What do your experiments show?

At this point in time we cannot say if cosmic radiation impacts the climate. So far up to now we have investigated the production of condensation nuclei for cloud droplets – particularly those that are formed from gas, i.e. gas-to-particle-conversion”. They represent about half of the condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. The remaining nuclei come from soot and dust.

- See more at: notrickszone.com... uf

So like I said, it shows that ONE of at least four factors is directly linked to the SUN. (soot, dust, GAS ect are others)

BUT that relationship IS NOT being contested. You CAN read that like you want. If you were REALLY trying to understand the material you would see that they simply arent jumping the gun like other "AHEM" alarmists saying that anything is definitive. Wait for it bub. They sure as hell arent saying they found NOTHING.

They sure as heck found that their experiment was successful and proved the relationship of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Does that mean they answered it all? NO...but dont worry. The worlds scientific community is pragmatic...not defeatists.

This experiment was to test ONE FACTOR in climate change, and it did, and proved its hypothesis that the sun is the determining factor in cloud formation....which is HUGE as far as climate.

There is more......but seeing how you receive it....yet hold this one crappy report saying the contrary...as definitive....as PROOF...never mind.

I show you evidence...you claim to have proof.

OK....sure bub.

I still think that over mining our mineral deposits is causing this bad weather pattern by changing the Geomagnetics of the planet. We can't keep dumping pollution in the air though, that is counteractive to the future of mankind and our food chain. We can't keep making chemistry that destroys the ability of the earth to easily take care of us and other species either. Concentrating even natural chemistry causes problems. We have made a mess of this planet. It is not just carbon emissions. That is like saying that a car is junk just because it has a flat tire. Someone would question your perception from looking at a single flaw. Yes we are screwing up this planet but the whole thing is very complex and no one thing alone is going to do much. It is a deception to keep us focused on one single piece of the puzzle instead of looking at the fact that the other pieces are all broken.

Global warming is just one piece of the puzzle, anyone with a brain should be able to see that. We only see what we want to see, we are living for the now and not the future of our grandchildren. I am not without guilt on this but I can still see the problem. The Economy in this present world seems to be more important than the future of our kids. The internet is good for ecology, many spend their time sitting behind a keyboard and aren't driving around wasting gas. I would think it might be an overall plus on the environment.

reply to post by tadaman

I think it COULD change abruptly. The science across many disciplines shows that it has in the past.

Define rapidly. Then some examples would be beneficial.

I dont however, think it is a man made problem. We have lacked in MANY areas, but we arent in a hollywood movie where that clutch moment calls for the "specialist scientist" to demand we build a drill or a rocket.....or what ever,.

The science disagrees. I don't see any such demands being made by science.

Where all this climate alarmism industry should spend the trillions in public money they have seen over the years is on food production and infrastructure.

You mean like GMOs?

We arent going to stop the warming or the cooling. These cycles are there for a reason and we shouldnt even consider tampering with a working system. We need to think about survival and promoting a realistic way to feed billions of people while the weather is still nice.

We are experiencing an anomalous change in climate with a correlated rise in CO2 levels. That rise in CO2 levels is attributable to the combustion of materials which in which CO2 was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago. The increase increase in CO2 levels "should" show a higher temperature increase than that which has been observed in the past decade and a half, which implies that there are mitigating factors and also implies causation.

I agree that preparing for increasing unpleasantness is advised, scratch that, required. I disagree that nothing can be done to mitigate it in the long term.

we need to change the way we feed ourselves.

Go go GMO!

reply to post by Phage


NO trebek.

Answer my question I asked TWICE now.

What do you think will happen if we do nothing?

Then I will play your games....You rouge.......