Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

You've seen nothing to refute it? You've not read the ****ing thread then, **** off back and read the thing, before making stupid comments like that.

 

Carbon credits have got **** all to do with the actual issue. Politicians reaching agreements that protect their own nations interests is all that carbon credits are about.

 

And of course the links he's posted and copied and pasted from, arent published by climate change deniers who are largely driven and funded by the oil industry like.......nooooooooo

 

Look, this planet, and its flora and fauna, will adjust to whatever. Isn't that the Gaia principle? I appreciate that. But let me come back to my original, naive (?) point : the times they are a changing, we can't control the sun, so why don't we do something about the things we can control? Shouldn't we be looking to wean ourselves off fossil fuels anyway, when we have solar, wind and tidal power there for the taking anyway?

I am in agreement with your points here, especially fossil fuels, but.. who's "we"? Is that us in the first world, where we've enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels all our lives to the benefit of health living standards and everything really, there is nothing you can see in your room where you are right now that doesn't have fossil fuels in it mate.
So.. there are 2 Billion people without electricity. According to the WHO, 5 million children have died from illnesses related to indoor cooking fires and millions more parents who got throat cancer from same. (these records are far from complete, the numbers are certainly higher)

No infrastructure, no agriculture no medical care, transport and the trillion other things, even toothpaste, all need petrochemicals.
So, we are talking "global warming" to save lives.. saving lives by consigning hundreds of millions to no energy, whilst their crackpot banana republic governments take money from foreign governments to not produce CO2 whilst taking money from foreign corporations to allow them to rape their country.

Green progressives shudder at the image of a tribal man with a cell phone, I find that insane, these people want a longer life, better health and better living standards regardless of how many times Alec Baldwin says they should remain "untouched" by civilisation

So what about all the other pollution, why has it taken a back seat to CO2? There are over 100 dead zones in our oceans from our pollution even off UK and Irish coastlines, from our pollution, this is a growing problem, and a massive one. How many fish have eaten an ipod charger cable

Clean coal buring is blasphemy apparently, modern power stations are not the smog creators claimed.

Also, what most green clowns dont understand is... concrete emits CO2, that stuff civilisation is made from?

Solar wind and tidal are a joke, none can transport energy and provide no power when there is no sun\wind\waves and are not portable.
Also wind turbines create so much pollution in making and transporting them that they never ever mitigate the CO2 created making them.
Baotau China where wind turbine parts are made. EU green smugness, like economic smugness, means China's poisoning, of course, lets blame the Chinese for the pollution that helped drive our economies and green lameness.

please log in to view this image

Here's a tip, CO2 that is not. CO2 is transparent, that is actually real pollution, bio-particulate matter and chemicals. This is the pollution that kills.
This toxic wasteland that used to be good farmland, wont grow **** for centuries and even then the food wont be safe to eat when growing can finally happen.

Don't get me wrong, some of these 'Good Life' solutions are bourgeoisie bullshit, quaint and tacky, imho, when we're making our last mines redundant and importing cheap, slave-labour coal from Colombia. But simply chucking up more and more CO2 into a globally warming environment will just accelerate the ineviatable when we need to buy time to make ineviatable adjustments to human habitation, won't it?

I certainly understand the concern, with high CO2 throughout history, Oxygen was also high (some scientists try blame CO2 for dinosaur species extinction through suffocation, though their papers omitted the fact that Oxygen was massively higher too, debunking their papers entirely) We know oxygen was much higher then, as proven by the giant insects of the period. CO2 in the ISS is over 2000ppm, 4 times earth CO2, so.. humans only really start to be effected by levels upwards of 6000ppm in confined spaces. safety regulations say 10.000ppm should only be short term exposure, but completely safe at that level for limited periods, we are 500ppm now.

Again, Co2 was 7000ppm, and well over 4000ppm at times when the planet thrived, so that reasoning doesn't add it.
Do humans need to be more environmentally inert, a big YES, but this concept has been hijacked by fraudulent climate science (no UN government funds any studies to the contrary) hardly scientific, in fact, if you are already receiving funding and you work a paper disproving this fraud, your funding gets pulled and your character is assassinated. "Oil Shill" for example

We do need to manage better especially with a growing populatipon (we are not over populated that is a myth)
Here is how it works. Our own first world model is the proof. Let me explain.
We in the first world are more energy efficient, less polluting than we were 50 years ago, thanks to our advancement from fossil fuels.
By that logic, if being more developed means you pollute less and are more efficient with energy.. then develop the third world asap, and get them to our level, not consign them to suffering by preventing them developing with fossil fuels and donating them a paltry sum in reparations(planned by IPCC) that their government will get and put in their pockets.

I also should point out that oil will be so expensive in 60 to 100 years as production will be 20% of today.

You mention coal, do you know, the IMF and EU have given Ukraine billions and part of that is dependent on Ukraine digging up all it's coal and selling it to pay them back. Disconnect there yes?

I am what you would call austere, never personally owned a car, don't fly that often, I recycle, dont buy new **** until old **** breaks, and I would certainly have a tiny carbon footprint, not because of Co2.. but because I am not into materialism, it's the way to go alright, dont buy **** you dont need, stop feeding the monster.


Look, I truly can't be arsed getting into human/solar cause of temperature rising, but rising it is, and you yourself don't deny that wil have long-term (beneficial?) changes to the earth's habitat - fertile deserts sounds great. but in the meantime, as we move the human population from coasts and valleys to higher plateaus and erect ever-more expensive flood barriers, can't we try and slow the process just a tad?

How do we slow what? Think about it, we are talking about "Controlling the weather 100 years from now"
That's the insanity, and all fleshed out in Pseudo scientific nonsense that is unfalsifiable. It's nothing short of Mayan calendar predictions cos you know, we cannot tell the weather a week from now man, 100 years!

Adaption, common sense, if we have more floods we build flood defences, we have not, 30 years of man made global warming nonsense and no flood defences of note in northern England, through Tory and Labour governments..
Higher energy prices along with worsening winters.. lower energy costs, nope, green subsidies mean that much of the 20.000 people who died in cold weather in the UK.. in more than one winter! died because they could not afford to heat their place. Including one old War Vet.. survived a war to freeze to death in his own home because he was afraid of energy bills.
Energy bills will go up and up.. climatards call this "saving lives"

The greenies throw a fit if you talk of adaption, infuckingsane

So lets look at the answers to this, taxes, regulations, like no dredging in the UK, a regulation that has guaranteed worse flooding, as well as no defences, yet Cameron talks climate change and saving lives in 2100

The "many" need to engage their brains mate.

 

Anyone remember the hysteria over hurricane Patricia this year?
When it left the US (never made landfall) and hit Mexico, the Mexicans downgraded this cat 5 hurricane to a cat 2 storm
#lyingcunts

 

Can I ask again whether it is accepted that (for whatever cause) global temperature has risen and is rising, and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect global temperatures?

As I understand it, it only took a few percent rise in temperature (allegedly cause by CO2 from volcanoes) @ 1000 years to reverse a snowball earth that had lasted for millions of years. The implications of that (if true) is that if a few of the earth's volcanoes kick off in unison we're ****ed anyway, as it would appear that just a few degree rise in temperature for just a relatively short time changes the game forever. Is that right? So we need to make adjustments to human habitats (good luck with that with 8 billion of us). Shouldn't we be buying as much time as possible?

 

Yeah they made the entire thing up, including the images and the $400m worth of damage it did.

It was all part of a global warming conspiracy, it was nothing but a mere gust.

It was still a cat 5 at the point it made landfall btw, but don't let facts get in the way of your latest tripe.

 

Nonsense, Eron and Goldman Sachs created the cap and trade system with Al Gore in the 90s, a full decade before an "inconvenient truth" came out.
Enron created several green groups to lobby congress on CO2 after creating cap and trade with the above mentioned, to ruin their opposition in the coal business.
Cap and trade according to the EU audit 2015, billions missing in carbon credits. Massive carbon trading fraud.

Banks are set to make trillions, Barclays trade carbon credits for the UK gov, Barclays.. that bank recently caught up in fraud.. llllLibor

Thatcher used it in the UK to destroy the coal unions too.

Some history that you will claim is "conspiracy theory" cos the BBC never said it

 

Well lets see, when the Cat 5 hurricane (biggest in history apparently that did no damage) went to Mexico, they said, no this is a storm.. so someone is making something up

Again, you invoke "conspiracy theory" because of your ignorance of the subject

 

When you discuss this subject and someone says "conspiracy theory" all you can do is shake your head in dismay at the blinkered stupidity of people who believe stuff they dont understand.

Tobes you believed in global warming a year ago, now you are calling it climate change You did the old move the goalposts, just like the IPCC when your global warming was utterly debunked.

 

Volcanoes cause cooling from aerosols, not CO2. So that is not accurate. Jet engines also release sulfur aerosols, this is actually pollution. Not CO2

In fact to increase fuel pressure, the amount of sulfur was doubled in jet fuel.

Aerosol cooling in the past 20 years has been thoroughly debunked as a cause for no global warming in 18 years

 

Interesting stuff. Thanks for that. decisions need to be made, and I'm only interested in how we got here in so much as it effects the path of the future. I personally (and I say this as an ex CND activist in the 80's) find it hard to understand why, as our technology increases, we aren't developing nuclear power more. As to your arguments re solar power - shouldn't third world counties in tropical climates be harvesting this?

I take on board what you said about 'green' technologies, and the carbon footprint it takes to develop them in the first place. I remember reading a book by Ben Elton in the 80's (Stark? Gridlock?) in which he points out that all the 'benefits' of driving a 'smart' car are wiped out by producing it in the first place. And here's the rub, when you point out the understandable desires of developing third world countries wanting what 'we' have now: what happens when each individual on this planet gets their own car? I mean, it seems every adult in our society has the right to their own motor I(both me and my daughter do, so I accept the hypocritical finger being wagged at me). Across the road from me, a family of four (two teenage kids and their parents) have a car each, a work's van and a motor bike. The road outside theirs' (and sometimes ours too, thanks to them) is like a ****ing car park.

Food for thought. By the way, talking of re-cycling, took the dog for a walk this morning and passing the local the dog stopped and seemed fascinated with a spot just to the side of a bush. I never noticed at first and just got on with absent-mindedly texting my sister in Liverpool. I eventually dragged him away, and it appears a reveller chucked-up on their way home last night and Astro found it tasty.

Happy New year to y'all, on that note.

 

All of which has **** all to with the basic premise of global warming and the physics that sits behind it.

You never answered the question I asked you yesterday btw.

 

@donga kloppo
I will explain why this nonsense is not true, with facts. Simply.

The core premise of CAGW is that CO2 absorbs heat in the lower troposphere then emits it back towards the surface. This is central to CAGW, without it, there is no theory. The Troposphere MUST warm up and show a "hot spot", this feedback is meant to cause more water vapour that also heats the troposphere.
The second core premise is that this will create a blanket of Greenhouse gas that traps more and more heat leading to less and less radiation leaving the planet, hence a tipping point where it is self sustaining and we end up like Venus.

1. OK so looks look at the troposphere measurements

please log in to view this image

So no warming there, I mean there is warming, but not the warming claimed. Nowhere near, this is natural variability. Keep in mind 79 is when statellite records began, right at the end of a big cooling of the planet for almost 20 years WHILE CO2 skyrocketed


2. The tipping point. Below is the IPCC models, showing how less radiation escapes as warming goes up, essential to CAGW. The first one in this image is satellite readings (Lindzen and Choi 2009 paper for the IPCC, they never put this in their report), the others are the IPCC models.

please log in to view this image

So as we see with empirical data, the reverse of what the IPCC claim is actually occurring, that the more earth warms, radiation escaping to space increases. This means there can be no "tipping point"

CAGW has been destroyed but politicians and liberal media will never report this. Instead they attack Lindzen's character. I see similarities on this thread to honesty and facts. Denial, which is ironic as I am a denier

Solar physicist Willie Soon disproved the solar radiance paper the IPCC use ( a paper from an environmental politically appointed NASA mathematician, not a physicist), so now they call Willie Soon an "oil shill". #science

 

Global warming is a fact as far as I'm concerned. It's happening.

The change in climate that this drives is tangibly apparent.

You can hold whatever beliefs you see fit, it's of no consequence to my existence, but what I won't have is you making out that anyone who doesn't agree with the conclusion you have chosen to hold, is somehow an idiot or a climatard.

You debunked **** all btw, you just posted a contrary view, it alters jack **** in terms of the actual reality.

 

Simple put Donga, when that data all came in, and the world copped on, they changed it to "climate change" cos well, any extreme weather can be then blamed on man made climate change cos global warming theory died from 1998 onwards (proven by Tobes hysteria over daffodils in December)

I suggest you research "climategate" where they were caught hiding the decline in temps

Also look up what is happening to scientists who disagree, with science. It's like the Church and firmament all over again, fired barred from teaching and funding pulled and vilified.
#science

 

Stating that the global warming theory died from '98 onwards is absolute drivel.

10 of the hottest years on record have come since '98 and 2014 and 2015 are the hottest 2 years on record.

You using that baseline and declaring its no longer happening is disingenuous

 

Tobes I aint reading your posts, I tune you out when you go all Conpiracy theorist about me having a conspiracy theory.

Plus your "scientifically" backed arguments.. You wont even elaborate on the stuff you post Embarrassing.

Go back to RAWK to gloat.. oh wait we are ahead of ye in the league, is that why you are here

 

Ok, so this is saying that CO2 DOESN'T effect temperature? Again I ask, not to cause an argument but because I'm confused, why do scientists claim that CO2 from volcanoes reversed the Snowball Earth in 1000 years? Did Snowball Earth not happen? Are they wrong as to the causes of its reverse?

Got to go to work now. I'll read and comment on any replies later.

Fascinating discussion chaps. There SEEMS to be science on both sides for the causes, but not a clear thought of what action to take, if indeed to act at all. Must say, it's a paradigm shift to me that CO2 doesn't effect temperature, but then again I have never taken more than a surface interest in this subject and have accepted what even the Telegraph, an anti-green paper if ever there was one, has said on this aspect of the discussion.

 

I'll wait for PJ to make some actual points to discuss instead of pasting a web page with lots of links he never read and he expects me to read them, and if I do and break each one down, taking me a few hours, he wont read my post