Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Climate is a massively complicated system. CO2 is only one component but the one that politicians and businessmen like to build everything around because of fossil fuel interests.

You'll notice however that anti-climate change people don't produce any science or predictions of their own. They just argue like lawyers (because they mainly are) that the video of their client murdering someone should be inadmissable evidence because the warrant for its seizure had a typo on it.

 

But they have produced facts that counter the percieved current 'correct' science, and they've also exposed the fact that some of the facts and figures being used to promote the current theory weren't correct, in fact they were deliberately misleading.

The fact that they've not come up with a counter theory doesn't matter does it? What they're saying is that the current one is flawed.

 

All scientific theories are flawed. That is why people still do science.

 

The point is , Tobes, that if the claims are false then a few climatologists are left with egg on their faces- if the claims are true, and we do nothing about it, then we all go to Hell in a handcart with the fossil fuel lobby whining "not our fault". So the question is-which would we rather?
It's not about apportioning blame, it's about making sure we do the best we can, and if it is the case that it's a natural shift anyway and we're helpless to change it then that's just tough ****, but if there's a chance we're making a contribution we'd be mindless idiots to ignore it.
And why? So the big companies with a vested interest in fossil fuels can continue to rake it in for a bit longer?

I really don't understand what Sisu is trying to get across here, and he flatly refuses to address any of the questions I've brought up.

Calling people gullible is a dangerous game- it's an edge that can cut both ways.

 

Are they?

Isn't there plenty of scientific theory that has subsequently been proven to be fact?

As I said, I'm unsure on this one, from taking it as 'gospel' not so long ago, I'm now unconvinced.

 

You are correct in what you say re the information. There is an important distinction between the sides tho. Most (man made) climate change skeptics do accept we MUST be having some effect, we are an imput into the system after all. There's a lot of research going into this that is not producing alarmist results and these guys face attacks, only last year a prominant defector from the alarmist camp joined the moderates (yeah hilarious isn't it when discussing it sounds like religious conflict) and the IPCC and it's followers attacked the guy, even though he was still working on the assumption that we do cause an effect, colleagues still with the IPCC withdrew their names from co authored papers, basically everyone he worked with for the past few years disowned him at the drop of a hat. This guy feared for his family and his health, his own words in a resignation letter!!! What does that tell you about the pro c(lie)mate side

So there, a fundamental difference, the skeptics have their opinion, but they are not threatening to or actually destroying careers, and then the IPCC and it's masses of idiots who vehemently attack any opposition as if it's nazism v Communism in the 30s ffs.

I've been doing my best to stay away from the unproven stuff and look at what we do know, and what we know is as you have rightly said, CO2 and temperature are not directly linked because that is impossible because of A. 17 year pause while CO2 has gone up, not high, it's 8 times lower than times past ffs. and B. All of the historical data shows the temp goes up first, then comes the CO2.


We are in an interglacial period.

When a proper ice age comes, there is a thaw and then a cycle of glacial and interglacial.. with the periods between glacial events increasing in duration up till you go back to a proper ice age again, we still haven't properly come out of the last ice age. But.. the current interglacial period is coming to an end in the next couple of hundred years, the IPCC ****ing know this, it's a #fraud. Started on a lie, continued on lies.

Ask yourself one question, what happens anyone at the IPCC that says the reports are not accurate or the report does not reflect what they are working on, now you have grads going into the IPCC and if any one of them decided to refute anything the IPCC are doing, career ender. This is not how science is meant to work ffs.

At least the population issue will be resolved when this interglacial period ends, I don't call it a problem because everyone on earth would fit in texas

 

I largely wouldn't argue with that mate. Cutting down carbon emissions is something we should continue to strive for, irrespective of any current doubt around climate change. As renewables are our future anyway, so we should continue down that road with full vigour.

I'm fiercely against Fracking for example, and I'm currently working with a protest group to try and get the message out there around this god awful process and what it will do to our environment if we let the Tory lead lobby drive this forwards.

 

That is not accurate at all Saint. First of all they've been wrong since day one, is there egg on their faces? Nope.

Secondly, do you realise the impact of halving the current CO2 levels? Guaranteed crop yield reduction, guaranteed!

No one seems to remember Global Cooling? In the late 70s and early 80s? No huh? Where the Americans wanted to spray soot all over the Arctic and Antarctic to melt the ice caps, just egg on their face huh?, do you know the damage that could have been caused by being wrong? I'm talking inland sea kind of events from that fiasco had they went ahead

As if to prove it's all a joke, India and China are spewing out carbon at epic rates.
Jose Mujica Uruguay's president put it very accurately, what if there were as many cars per family in India or China as in the UK or Germany.

Meanwhile the actual things poisoning land sea and air go on unabated while the world is fooled into worrying about plant food. Do you know how many aquarists around the world put CO2 products into their tanks, and most of that CO2 comes back out of the tank with water disturbance

It's not a theory, the earth had over 2000ppm in glacial periods, ergo the IPCC are a bunch of ****ing liars perpetrating pseudo science on the world. Cos 2000ppm+ by their models would cause irreversible runaway heating

 

So, what's your suggestion?

 

In their simplest form yes. Human impact on the climate has been proven to be a fact. Evolution is a fact.

The details is where things get more complicated and it's easy to never make a prediction yourself and only criticise others when their predictions aren't perfect.

When Einstein wrongly predicted the precise value for the precession of Mercury he was able to go back and improve things. There wasn't a trillion dollar Newtonian Gravity industry paying for articles in business newspapers calling him a fraud.

 

Look at this IPCC chart from their site

please log in to view this image

Can anyone see the volcanic CO2 release, they have it at 0.03% of natural emissions I'll remind everyone of the colder winters after that volcano in Iceland that shat itself, due to crystals in the atmosphere, blocking sunlight, yes Volcanoes can actually cool **** right down.

It is estimated that there is 1500 known active volcanies on earth, not including oceanic floor vents and under ice vocanoes. To even pretend to be so arrogant as to know how much Co2 is being produced is

Termites alone create probably that 28% for animals and plants. Which is around 10 times what we produce so.. really we only produce 2% of all Co2 if you use IPCC logic.

Plantlife is a one way consumer of CO2 when growing, otherwise it is a 24 hour exchange period, breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen during the day and breath out CO2 and breathe in Oxygen at night.
Therefor it would be IMPOSSIBLE to even try put a figure on plantlife and animal life, insects are a MASSIVE input into the system, this is why as I said CO2 comes after temp because as the temp rises, insect populations multiply exponentually, all of this is irrelevant to the IPCC of course.
They only like to model on what they can wing as doom and gloom scenarios, and down play every natural CO2 source.

 

BTW maybe they included all those ocean floor vents in the large slice labelled ocean-atmopshere exchange

#basiccomprehensionskills

 

Sis, you can throw as many charts, graphs and figures at us as you like, but I doubt there's anyone here who has the skills to build an accurate climate prediction model from them. Again I ask, what is your suggestion? What course of action does all this data suggest?
Please, no more bloody figures.

 

I think it's time we waged war on carbonated drinks and chillers and freezers

 

Nah I reckon we should relax pollution and tax regulations on trillion pound businesses so they can continue to increase their profits and have even greater lobbying power.

What could possibly go wrong.

 

China produces 24.65%of total CO2 emissions.
India 5.98% of Total Co2
OCED member states 37.46% These are the growing economies.

In November 2014, to much fanfare, President Obama concluded an agreement with China on Climate. This was as a precursor to the major Paris climate conference in December 2015, where it is anticipated that a definitive and binding Climate agreement should be reached. These notes follow through that 2014 agreement as far as it concerns future likely CO2 emissions up until the year 2030.

Essentially the agreement said that whilst Western Nations would be expected to reduce CO2 emissions substantially, China, India and the rest of the developing world would continue its CO2 emissions growth until at least 2030 to ensure that continuing enhancement of the living standards of their populations, and that only then China would limit further growth of its CO2 emissions.

Following that logic China will produce what? 50% of total CO2 by 2030.. and India by 2030, given the inherent rotting corruption, can we even expect real CO2 figues from India ffs.


Whilst there is a logical economic argument for allowing this, reconcile it with what the IPCC have been saying about MMGW and MMCC

UK 1.47% of total MM CO2.

So termites create 200 to 400 times more CO2 than the UK

 

CO2 SchmeO2

Eventually folk will cop on that it is not in our control, the climate and temperature, unless we actually go and spray the skies.

Earth's orbit and axis undergo cyclical changes, called Milankovitch cycles after the astronomer. These cycles cause changes to the amount and distribution of sunlight that strikes the Earth, this is one big factor. The sun's magnetics also affects the jetstream making it fluctuate, latest US vortex events for example, coming much further south than usual is indicative of such fluctuations.

The IPCC don't even factor in our orbit like or the change in our axis and orbit of the sun which is ludicrous. Only now is science starting to cop on that we are getting far more radiation than before due to a 10% decrease ni our own magnetic shield, 10% meaning flights over the poles are actually exposed to space radiation. Plus the sun is hibernating as it's poles flip. This extra solar and galactic radiation is partly responsible for the change in our clouds, because they have changed drastically

None of this is even taken into account, along with the total disregard for nature when factoring CO2.

I was gonna say at least we don't still think we are the centre of the universe.. guess we still do some of us.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthsc...cker-Does-the-Universe-Revolve-Around-Earth-/



.

 

More lies from S(l)i(e)su.

The shortest Milankovich cycle is 26,000 years. Why would it be incorporated into climate models aiming to describe the next 100 years or less?

Your education system has failed you #criticalthinking

 

I said none of the above is taken into account. As in mapping the history of earth's cycles and the effects on climates. I didn't say they should model it specifically, furthermore that was one thing I mentioned, you left out the things that can actually be input into their models that others already use, the effects of increased amounts of radiation and particles hitting the atmosphere and the effects of solar magnetics on the jetstream, now why would you leave out those bits?

You say my education has failed me?

FYI I was a global warming believer prior to 2010. I'd had many a discussion about the impacts from the projected sea levle increases, then, I woke the **** up like. What that demonstrates at least is I can accept what I truly believed was wrong. It's not something everyone can do easily, believe what you actually don't want to believe because your existing belief is so strong, you fight to defend it, which is exactly what you are doing right now mate realise it or not.

You grew up with global warming wtf do you expect, many born after 1980 that believe it, it's one of those core beliefs you form growing up, that's why you climate loons get angry when someone is skeptic about it. ROFL

Believe what you want. Believe the #fraud if it makes feel better.

You mention critical thinking, yet you don't go looking for anything that may debunk your own opinion, I can safely say there is nothing from hte IPCC that even remotely makes me question my position because there is too much strong evidence to oppose anything they have said. When they got everything entirely wrong, my spidey sense started tingling

 

From the Sewdish solar telescope. In reference to Robitaille's paper about condensed matter on the sun. Some cool shots of the sun.

He obviously knows his **** this Robitaille lad, the paper is a good read or as Astro calls it a #Meltdown

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

This one it really looks like condensed matter and not gas

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image