Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Did sisu even read today's story as they are pretty sure they have their sums right for that part of the world. Oh who to believe its a real puzzle.

 

1
The ice has always melted and reformed as per irrifutable historical data.
The sea levels are not rising in line with ice melted forecasts. (red herring)
No one is saying we should not be "concerned" again more false argument and hyperbole, your usual

2
It's just common sense to say that if we do not know how much ice there is forming and melting every year we cannot claim to know.
You cannot separate the other issues, like Volcanoes melting the Antarctic ice sheet.
#scientists have said they do not know how much ice there is, IPCC claimed we were melting it all with CO2, they are the ones who made absolute incorrect anf misleading statements not I.

So you see, your childish paraphrasing and hyperbole in the face of facts makes you totally inadequate to even discuss this subject lad.

You can't discuss it, it is literally beyond your understanding, AND you just will never believe anything to the contrary even if the globe turned to ice you'd be saying it's cos of man made climate change in some scientific fiction

I can accept an argument like Diego's re ice losses, cos he make a valid point, maybe someone you can learn from.

 

I see you have taken my post completely reversed from how i meant it

 

I thought my comment about the weight of "a herd of elephants" may have hinted at my opinion of the story

 

Sorry mate, I've been "against everyone" on this thread so far, I missed that

Tho the point about ice loss is a relevant one, far more relevant than anything Astro offered, even if it was in jest.

When you boil it down like, the earth had vast amounts of ice in glacial periods and a CO2 level of between 2000 and 3000 ppm. Atm they are screaming of 400+ppm and the end of the world scenarios.


You know what is funny tho, the IPCC are now claiming their recent downgrading of their predictions are a result of denier reaction to them, not cos they were hundrends of % off the mark like, but because there are skeptics, this means they actually admit downgrading their predictions for non scientific reasons.. if you apply logic like

lastly, any field of science that is oversaw by political bureaucracy like Climate science is, is never a good thing, ever.

 

Not "proof" of anything, just more evidence of what I have been saying re the IPCC\ice situation

A research vessel, the Lance, has been deployed to an area about 500 miles from the North Pole and allowed to drift with the pack-ice.

The director of the institute, Jan-Gunnar Winther, said that measuring what happens in the winter was vital to improving scenarios for future climate change.
A major focus of the expedition is to examine the consequences of having less so-called multi-year ice and a greater proportion of younger ice (meaning the melting of ice sheets and the record increases in ice gains in winters as I've been saying)
"We have almost no data from the Arctic Ocean in winter - with few exceptions - so this information is very important to be able understand the processes when the ice is freezing in early winter and we'll also stay here when it melts in the summer," he explained.

"A new era has entered, we are going from old ice to young ice, thinner ice and the climate models used today have not captured this new regime or ice situation.

These are biologists on that sort of expedition but still there are the indicators that we know **** all about the area, the seas and the ice.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32553668


Yet more proof of incomplete IPCC science that doesn't stop them making ridiculous alarmist claims that help no one and just scare everyone into coughing up carbon tax, India and China will have a lot of wealth resistributed by "carbon taxes", whihc is primarily what that carbon tax kack is all about

 

The whole thing is a crock of **** (just my opinion). The carbon credits idea was a doozie, we need to limit carbon use so lets limit companies but, if they don`t use all their allowance let them trade them to others because it doesn`t really matter how much they use as long as money can be made from it

 

You clearly don't understand the point I'm trying to make, and have made many times before. Rather than address it, you simply bombard it with a load of facts which are quite meaningless to anyone who is not an expert in the field.
I'll make the point again, it matters not a bleeding jot what the details of the causes are, but if there is even the remotest possibility that what we are doing is contributing to it ( and nobody can be certain that it isn't), we are simply idiots for not doing whatever is in our power to mitigate it.
And surely only someone with a vested interest in the continuous, unregulated consumption of finite resources can fail to see the plain common sense of reducing that consumption?

And how can you interpret reducing our exploitation of nature as an attempt at "controlling" it? It's the exact opposite.

You're so concerned with examining the trees that you're missing the nature of the wood entirely.

 

True, one of the many "fallacies" of this whole mess.

Plus can we really "believe" we have an accurate number on Indian and Chinese emissions, which are btw still less than just what Volcanoes produce globally tho the IPCC will say voncanoes globally only account for 0.03%

What the IPCC refuses to discuss is, nature produces over 95% of CO2 and that is a grossly friendly estimate, it could be that nature produces 99%, we actually have no idea, but I am sick of the IPCC nonsense of claiming every alarmist piece of bullshit to be fact

Just look at how much Al Gore made from climate change and get this, his home energy bill, was $20,000 a year.




My stance//
We do have an effect, we must do, it's "how much of an effect we have"
That ans IPCC modelling which is off the charts in terms of pure bullshit

 

Therefore the reports by scientists who are not Al Gore and don't live in his house are wrong. Somehow.

 

I find it highly amusing that someone who loves a conspiracy theory, particularly one that points to big business, the banks and the Sherman's controlling the thought process of the masses for their fiscal gain, is the same fella who's decrying global warming with information that's been chucked into the public domain by those with a definite vested interest in playing down the effects of CO2 pollution, combined with the continual downing of the Worlds 'lungs'

 

CO2 is a natural gas, not a pollutant. Please explain the effects it has on the planet since historial records prove it does not effect temperature but in fact follows temperature.

 

CO2 increases following temperature increases but also acts as a feedback to increase temperature further, so 90% of heating comes after the CO2 release.

The lag effect you mention happens on timescales of 1000 years or just less. So are you saying the recent huge increases in CO2 aren't due to human industry but massive heating that happened 1000 years ago (hint: the Earth was actually cooling at that time so it's a trap)?

Or is it beause of Sisu's volcanoes that turned on around 2013?

 

I thought we have been coming out of an ice age for about 10,000 years?

 

Quote all of my post and show where I make that connection instead of quoting one line.Show me where I even suggest that what Gore does indicates anything?

But also quote Deiego's post I was replying to, lets have some context You are afraid of context cos it shows you to be a nut case

You're such a fail, you make such a weak argument that you have to go quoting 1 line out of posts and creating a totally new context and attacking it.

You are a failure, you can't even have a simple debate based on facts. You just have religious beliefs and every defence you have used is from the IPCC camp, every single one.

 

"Astrochump wrote
CO2 increases following temperature increases but also acts as a feedback to increase temperature further, so 90% of heating comes after the CO2 release.

The lag effect you mention happens on timescales of 1000 years or just less. So are you saying the recent huge increases in CO2 aren't due to human industry but massive heating that happened 1000 years ago (hint: the Earth was actually cooling at that time so it's a trap)?

Or is it beause of Sisu's volcanoes that turned on around 2013?"
_________________


that first list is absolute bollocks it is the cornerstone of the IPCC Fraud and has been utterly broken thanks to 2 decades of CO2 increases and no correspondng temperature increases. Lets not forget, we are talking natural Co2 was well so what ever we have produced, Nature produces 20 to 40 times more than man.

There is still not one bit of "proof" that CO2 in any way reflects head. None nada nil, and even less proof that it exists in amounts at those altitudes to do so, as it is a heavy gas, not a well mixed gas, go look up what that means Astro

By astro's logic and IPCC, CO2 at nearly 3000 PPM would turn the earth into a runaway heat trap and end up like venus. Yet it did not happen because CO2 does not reflect heat back towards earth and is not at those altitudes to do so.

Except the earth is not being warmed by CO2, the correlation is broken, CO2 goes up, heat not going up, magic it seems.

To maike it clear, earth at times was almost glacial, but.. the CO2 would have been epically high before the galcial period set in as that is when it rises to 2000ppm, 5 6 times what we have today, sp, with the planet with very little ice and epic CO2 levels compared to today, it still did not stop the onset of hte periodical glacial period, but BUT now with 400+ PPM, we are looking at disaster?


You cant fix stupid.

Astro using IPCC claims to back his argument is like Christians using pictures of jesus to prove god is real

NOTE: Astro is now taking it to the IPCC unproveable points on AGW argument and avoiding everything else, which is still a science that is miles off the mark, a science that has produces wrong result after wrong result, and this is his backup AGW?

Astro literally doesn't understand wtf he is talking about.

CO2 follows temp becaus the ice melts. then as life blooms CO2 goes down, as warming continues CO2 starts to go up again because more ice melts and permafrosts melt and things like termite populations explode (termites create 10 to 20 times what manc creates in C02, then things start to cool which is why CO2 is so high, as life dies off and things freeze. Rinse and repeat.

 

Unlike Astro's magical tale of AGW what happens with CO2 comes after temperature beacuse of several main factors, and the thaw also brings several more factors into play that create even more Co2.

Things that create more CO2 like
Melting ice
uncovered volcanoes by receeding ice sheets
population explosions of termites and other CO2 creating lifeforms
Permafrosts melting
Warming oceans


The conditions for the IPCC doomsday scenarios have already been present on earth, and worse than today by far, yet, the cycle continued.

No runaway heating cycle even with 5 to 10 times more CO2 than today.

And ask yourself this, how the **** did Co2 get to 2500ppm with no coal buring around ?

****ing dinosaurs and their fossil fuels, #irony


The sad thing is we may or may not be having an impact but it's hard to tell because the IPCC are a bunch of lying ****s.

 

Honest question, Can somebody please explain to me what I have missed here (a lot probably) so that sisu's words make sense (he bolded his own words) as I certainly do not get the meaning he does from the sentence prior to his words.

 

Don't worry he's just having a #meltdown

I only #baited him in retaliation for his "astro and Tobes" comment in the other thread

 

When all else fails say "#meltown" and refer to other threads.

Your AGW defence is