Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report

reply to post by tadaman

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Phage
reply to post by tadaman

Define rapidly. Examples

a decade. Last mini ice age.

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

ANAAAAAL........I was making light of the dire situation climate alarmists argue...like its was a hollywood movie.

You mean like GMOs?

No. I mean like using current hydroponic technologies and thousand year old techniques to feed ourselves.

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.

READ....it has nice little graphs too.

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com...

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.

At least we agree on something....sheesh.

"Go go GMO!"
No. I think tomatoes were fine the way they were thank you.

reply to post by tadaman

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.

How you get that from the statement from Kirkby.

Did you not read your own quote?

At this point in time we cannot say if cosmic radiation impacts the climate.

notrickszone.com...

reply to post by Phage



Oh ok...


EDIT:

Did you not understand it?

He says ther is NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

That does not mean there is no evidence.

AGAIN.

This was to test ONE FACTOR.

IT DID. That does noy conclusively prove anything...BUT IS EVIDENCE...you know

the good stuff people use to form theories and make models.....

Now you give some BS report that isnt even accepted once peer reviewed as conclusive PROOF....

reply to post by tadaman


That's your source. You didn't read it, did you?

reply to post by tadaman

He says ther is NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

No. He says

At this point in time we cannot say if cosmic radiation impacts the climate.

The experiment showed that cosmic rays can produce very very tiny particles in the middle troposphere. Those particles were too small to have any effect on cloud formation. That is not evidence that cosmic rays help the formation of clouds or have an effect on climate. And that is that Kirkby said.

Not "cosmic rays may affect climate". He said the experiment says nothing about it.

reply to post by Phage


Look up.

I couldnt see how you were looking at my source and reading something differently



It turns out you were being obtuse.

You know damn well the purpose of the experiment wasnt to PROVE climate was directly linked to the sun...it was to provide evidence for the hypothesis of cloud formation.

That is why he didnt say the sun outright regulates climate.

HE DID SAY IT REGULATES CLOUD FORMATION.

I couldnt believe you didnt get that. You didnt even READ it yourself...just skimmed for a counter point.

What the hell is the use in showing you evidence if you think you have definitive proof. If that was the case the evidence would coincide with your "facts". It doesnt.....so go back to the drawing board and look at what others are finding.

reply to post by tadaman

HE DID SAY IT REGULATES CLOUD FORMATION.

I must be obtuse then. Please show me where he says that.

reply to post by Phage



They are being careful not to jump the gun. ALL REAL SCIENCE is like this.

as far as that dribble you keep implying that they failed at their experiment.

CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD's lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss's warning.

"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."

www.theregister.co.uk...

OK?

Are we done here with the source back and forth?....like I knew you would do (all you can do in the face of communal common sense)....as if this enhances the argument or brings anything worthwhile to the conversation.

and we are full circle. You are pro climate hell.....I am sick of it.

Bye...

reply to post by tadaman

as far as that dribble you keep implying that they failed at their experiment.

Please tell me where I said that they failed at their experiment.
Please tell me where Kirkby said that cosmic rays regulate cloud formation.

And please...slow down a bit to read my replies before posting.

Krakatoa
I'll re-post some of the data I presented in a related ATS thread this week that I believe is relevant to the discussion here.

Thanks for the injection of common sense!!!!


Excellent read and graphs



- SN

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


C'mon.

Newsweek Hides Global Warming Denier's Financial Ties to Big Oil

From that excellent investigative piece in Harper's on the funding behind the climate skepticism "industry":

......Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself -- his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments -- have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!

But wait, it gets worse. ...

InTheFlesh1980
reply to post by Phage

 

Ok. He's right and the whole panel is wrong. No more to say about it I guess.
Got it. Thanks.

At least speak to the content of his statement. His credentials are undeniable.

What about his criticisms of the report?

Edit: And as for the "panel", I'm pretty sure getting on the panel is like everything else like this in life. You obtain your prestigious position on the IPCC panel after it is determined that you are onboard with the agenda.

Why would they elect a scientist to the "panel" if that would run the risk of undermining the pre-determined outcome of the fudged data?

edit on 9/30/2013 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)

His credentials are undenable - yet he is one of a few - holding this viewpoint.

Whether or not - humans are the single motive cause of Global Warming (don't forget dimming as well) is really irrelavant at this point. The Climate is changing drastically - on many fronts and in many disparate systems and human survival on the planet is at stake and we have to act to counterblance these drastic changes.

Many believe that 'chem-trails' are one such method of leveraging the CO2/warming feedback loop. Perhaps so - however it is also believed that such intervention may be contributing to Global Dimming.

The homeostatis of the Water Cycle on the planet has been horribly upset by human action and no one knows how to get this system back on a sustainable track.

Salinity of the Oceans (very important for current flow) is horribly disrupted.

All this focus on Global Warming (human caused or not) is a distraction from the overall Pollution Problem and I challenge any one to deny human causes in that.

Regardless, to survive, we must act and that my friends is going to mean having to coerce many secments of society. But rather than looking at it as "taking something away from someone" we can choose to look at it as providing opportunities to all, to be of service to a higher good. It will mean sacrifice but also well-being to all.

Ok, now there's a sword fight. You both serve your masters well. How they made either side of this duel a for profit enterprise I do not know but I'll assure you they have. All the science you've both sited is relevant and real however it is interpreted. Whether humans are responsible is irrelevant. The planet is warming, period.
There is a giant floating pile of man made garbage swirling in the pacific, period. There are 7 billion people consuming everything in sight and most if not all dream of driving big cars and living in big houses like most of us arm chair scientist do so to think humans have no conclusive or measurable or significant or any other word you'd like to use impact on the ecosystem is wrong, period again.

Sorry but it is obvious we such as custodians of this planet.

You can now continue your sword fight. Excuse me for the interruption.

The back and forth is like watching two tennis greats in a grueling death match.

popcorn is at the ready.

btw. for the record global warming sucks.

How about we call it pollution control.

This MIT guy is entitled to his opinion, educated or not. He's in an ever decreasing minority though. How unmistakable signs of warming can be denied is a mystery to me. But hey, time's on my side. Unfortuantly, I can same the same for our planet. Good luck, Deniers.

Heat Energy,, heat is the absence of Cold. As silly as that sounds, the answer is just that.

Is it getting less cold in certain areas of the world?

Remember it is heat which made the first man say,, "# thats hot" .

and comfy tastes better too,, ohh and keeps scary monster away. ,,,actually it was light, that kept, the monsters away, GROG,, nothing too do with Heat
Grog smash now

I have one solution. Those who believe this nonsense about Man Made Global Warming can go right ahead and pay your carbon taxes to Goldman Sachs and save the Planet aka Donate your money to the filthy rich, since they and the Political establishment are the ones behind all this propaganda. As soon as they found out there were trillions to be made with the Global Waming it stopped being about Earth, as soon as they found out they can use the Global Warming excuse to advance their World Government it stopped being about Earth. It's all about future taxes and control, if there was no money involved there would be no propaganda. Same as GMO's, It's the elite attempt at substituting the Petro Dollar with something else since it's days are numbered.

Or do you really think you would see all this Media/Political propaganda if there was no money involved?

By the way, if you think we are a threat to this planet go back in time and ask the people who experienced some of Earth's cataclysms if they felt like a treat to the planet...
The Planet will be here, alive and well long after we have all been extinct.

reply to post by Vehemens

The Planet will be here, alive and well long after we have all been extinct.

No doubt. Don't really care much about that.

But I do care about what it's like for my kid and hers. It's going to get unpleasant and it has a lot to do with what we've been doing for the past 100 years or so.