In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.”
Bobbo, you have committed a rookie mistake for an AGW. Don’t make predictions that can be tested, at least quickly. This means things like ice-free North Pole this summer, no summer ice by 2020, snow will be a thing of the past in England within 10 years. Better to stick to long term predictions, and then claim that everything else is within the range of what the models predict.
So what did you do? You said 350 ppm is a tipping point. What exactly do you think the current CO2 level is? Granted you didn’t say what a tipping point would mean, but if you present a scientific claim that says we are doomed, then any action that is desired by the dogmatist is a waste of time.
You also revealed that you interest isn’t in planetary temperatures but developing green energy.
German economist Ottmar Edenhoffer: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
Oh Mickey—pulease!!!
7 billion people in the world and if any of them say “AGW will cause Polar Ice to dissappear by 20xx” and it does not, that means AGW has been proven wrong?
The IPCC has never made such a SPECIFIC forecast. But you jump on it as if such specificity was a requirement and meant anything one way or the other.
Its a TREND. Why does the Ocean continue to rise? How far up your leg does the water have to get? How many glaciers must disappear? How many species move North? How many more record temp/snow/rain events? Can your brain/emotions accept the zigzag data collection as part of the process of establishing a trend or is every down zig proof the trend is not in the opposite direction?
Silly positions like yours are just that. Don’t understand basic science. Basic math/statistics. Its stupidity like yours that allows the entrenched energy interests to prohibit a solution.
The ONLY reason I am for Green Energy is because it is a solution to the societal cataclysms that any person should see coming. Not for you or me, or even our kiddies. But our grand and great grand kiddies are going to say: “Really?==they argued about this?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Last time, you proffered that sea level was going down? I forget the details but as usual your info was proven wrong and that you were just lying. Now its Cosmic Rays and you are also lying.
You know Mickey–you are like any standard religion: all your predicitions/facts are wrong and yet you still want to challenge science with your beliefs.
I’ll put you down for “Devo.”
Silly Hoomans.
Escaped from the Travel Lodge.
Come on bobbo pick up the pace I have ten bucks riding on you.
Badabada: Gee, all you do is post to criticize my own good work. Nothing of substance yet from yourself. From this meager evidence, can I divine your position on this topical issue?
You haven’t posted to tell me I’m wrong–so you likely are pro-AGW==good man.
But you post against me because I am a Man of Science and Men of Science are pro-AGW–so you are likely anti-AGW==Devo.
I don’t recall the issue on which we disagreed, only that it took pulling teeth to get you to actually provide analysis. You like being irrelevant, kneejerk, and ab hominem–so you are likely Devo.
Ok–the score is 1:2/Science vs Devo.
I’ll just assume the worst of you until you prove otherwise. Hmmmmmmkay?
#63 Are you suggesting humans are a major cause of polluted water? Quit being such a liberal environmental sheep!
# 70 Dallas, your absolutely right, it’s silly to even think or even suggest humans are a major cause of polluted water!
It’s only rummer-ed that at least thirteen fires on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868 are related to human pollution. In June 22, 1969, a fish smoking a cigaret started the river fire that captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that “oozes rather than flows” and in which a person “does not drown but decays.”
These fires had nothing to do with human pollution. Indeed, Native Americans called the Cuyahoga River a naturally polluted river by fish pee and poop.
Thanks # 70 Dallas, for setting us straight.
Yeah, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is really misunderstood by Americans and really is a pollination process between flora and fauna and not human related at all.
Mother nature is really the culprit. Human pollution is really insignificant, maybe <0.01% of Mother nature pollution. EPA over regulation has forces unnecessary business expenses and job losses with emission abatement and effluent treatment processes when the polluter is really Mother nature.
Thanks for the clarity on the subject.
When an issue gets as big as this, with so many thousands loudly proclaiming on all sides and even the science picked to death in every direction, it’s difficult even for an intelligent and interested non-scientist to know what to think.
One thing I tend to do is to follow the ideas and writings of people I know about from other things and whose integrity I trust. For example, Dr. Robert Ballard, is known for finding the wreck of the Titanic and for work popularizing the science of oceanography. Here’s a quote from his Wikipedia article:
“If you want to know the truth, it’s too late. All the ice is going to melt. There is a lag, it’s already in the system. And, in fact, people don’t want to say that, because they still want people to change their ways. But when it comes to glaciers and polar regions, it’s going to melt”.
By a large margin, enough other people I trust more than any Fox News Personality, AM radio blowhard or blog comment ranter have come down on the side of AGW that I am pretty convinced that it’s real and that the next few decades/centuries/millennia/whatever will not be pretty for the human race. And it’s our own damn fault.
If you believe differently, let me ask you, why is that? What has convinced you? Is it because you are annoyed by all the damn hippie liberal pinko statist facist sheeple? Is it because Rush or your minister or some politician says so? That’s all I ask — consider the quality of the evidence you place the most credence in…
Uncle Patso==while a good man and honest, Dr Ballard has no expertise at all in the field of Climatology. He can accurately tell us that he sees the ice melting everywhere: we already have pictures of that, videos of that, time lapse of that, maps of that, postcards of that.
Has nothing to do with predicting the future. Has nothing to do with science of climatology.
Yes–the allure of positions that agree with our own positions.
Hard to resist.
Don’t even get me started on what happens to the human mind when his wallet gets involved. Even god spins BS to get his 10%.
Yea, verily.
Beware polar ice melting alarmism. That a 2 degree C warming will actually be nice is the reason behind this falsehood.
Simply explain to one and all how and when the ice leaves Antarctica. Clue: there is no liquid phase of water there, in fact there is no vapor phase. Does more weather mean that more water goes onto the polar continent or not, i.e., does warming of the oceans increase the ICE?
cgp==ocean leavel continues to rise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
I assume there are maps of the poles showing the ice coverage?
Or – just post whatever you want to. Some will take it seriously, others humorously.
I think that is called pointless?
bobbo you actually believe wiki?
There are also seasonal mean temperature isotherm maps of the polar continent.
Compare with the melting point of water.
My posts have a direct point -> AGW is fraud. Those that push AGW arguments are clueless in that they are either too lazy to read the dissenter literature and/or have no analytical skillsets to even attempt to consider the arguments. To those go back to your emotive leftist reading list.
The reminders are renters.
#76–cgp==you ask if I believe wiki. Why, yes, I do. I certainly believe wiki over someone who simply avers that wiki is wrong when they say that water melts.
What is your source for the contradicting important factoid that ocean level is not rising?
Or do you simply repeat the charge until others get tired?
I push the AGW argument. Is wiki now leftist literature because you disagree with it? That is so very alfie. BTW Alfie: good joke about shooting the polar bear. Made me chuckle.
Simply naysaying a linked/supported objective measurement is not “arguing” and if you want to stare lazy and clueless in the face, look in the mirror.
I CHALLENGE CGP==link to any source that says sea level is not rising as a trend over the past 50 years.
Otherwise, enjoy shaving with your eyes closed.
bobbo yogy bear’s mate booboo
I’m not going to debate with you. You never have engaged in reasoned counter point with anybody. I state you do not have the mind means to do so. You engage in ideological debate with the freedom of the perverted existentialist non-truth-to-anything basis.
Bobbo, as a non-debate factoid snippet, the truth of wiki is determined by the energies of the respective sides of whatever argumentitive factoids entries exist.
Perhaps the sea level entry may be won by AGW hordes, not the ocean scientists.
cgp==gibberish.
Too bad. I was hoping for more.
As I have a keen interest in the how and when ICE leaves the southern polar continent here are two links. My interest stems from Dr James Hansen’s greenpeace funded recent tours around the global touting that 75m sea level rise is imminent within the end of this century.
1st is the just in ice-flow maps, where a blatant AGW reporter shows his bias.
http://reuters.com/video/2011/08/25/antarctic-ice-flow-map-reveals-clues-to?videoId=218738420&videoChannel=6
So we have the conjecture that the melting of the continents bounding ice shelves will release a surge of inland glaciers lending to possibly 5m sea level rise within centuries.
2nd outlines debate in this topic. Note that the ‘something’ between notes 21 and 22 is likely to be ice on northern hemisphere continents that DO melt due to rising ambient temperatures at end of ice age.
http://aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm
Dammit bobbo your only at 23%. Given your abnormal fanatical vitriolic hatred of anything anti AGW tied with your zealotry borderline religious belief in green energy I expected this thread to be over 100 by now. Come on I know you have it in you. Turn this into the republican bashing hate fest you are so accomplished at.
In case your wondering I stopped reading your posts a number of threads back. Now I just count the numbers. Pick up your game, I have money riding on this.
cgp–you are bouncing all over the place like a monkey with a baddabing attached to its nuts.
One word game you anti-science Devo types like to play is substituting what climate scientist do which is make projections based on assigned variables and call it a prediction.
You post CRAP like a shotgun blast hoping any hapless soul who reads it will be able to make sense of it and find an argument one way or the other. Any you continue to deny hard evidence by simply denying it without link or authority===just your willingness to drop your pants and embarass everyone. But we see what you ain’t got:
Any link/authority to deny the sea level is increasing?—-Not yet after 3 requests to do so.
Now–do you have a link stating the likelihood there will not be a 5 M rise in the ocean in the next few centuries? Or are you just going to deny on your own pants on the ground authority.
Bobbo, given my links to ice movement, I just dispute the 75m rise BS. That’s all. I have no position on sea level trends. You brought that up. My off topic dissenter links were just additions to the AGW article whatever the specific topic.
Back to that specific topic, google cern cloud interpretation to see the crazy AGW damnation mis-workings of current science politics.
# 77 Dallas, really, do you really think I meant what I said? It’s called sarcasm, and a very big dose of it.
AGW is real, get over it.
If you can’t get over AGW is real, vote GWB again.
I’ll repeat my link to Prof Vincent Courtillot’s EIKE presentation dec 2010,
Berlin. (any english translations of the other german speakers?)
This a recent, most important example of dissenter work,
that gets buried amongst bobbo’s output of vomit.
That there is no Watergate reaction to this AGW fraud evidence along side many docos just shows me we live in a media world full of ideological agendas hence LIES in the face of overwhelming dissent.
Please take time to listen to his testimony of AGW peer group damnation.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=related
This was predictable. AGW is a consensus of disagreement. Real science is taking over… pendulum swinging the other way, and after all is said and done we’ll have had little effect on the natural phenomenon of global temperature fluctuations.
Bobbo, I wasn’t talking about the other 7 billion people making a false prediction, I’m saying you shouldn’t be making predictions that can be tested, unless you are very confident you will be right. It is you who have stated that 350 ppm CO2 is a tipping point. That level was passed 20 years ago. So apparently according to you, the planet has passed a tipping point and fallen over.
Re: #87 cgp, thanks for the link. All AGW pundits should watch and LISTEN to it. Use your brains.
Just wondering what species you are bobbo. Obviously not hooman. Otherwise everything you say is silly according to your own admission.
#85–cgp==curious, you seem to be serious. Passionate of course, but serious too. Its a little hard to tell because you are also seriously vague, ambiguous, and non specific. You have finally linked to a video that I will watch and report on later.
Sea Level has been continuously rising for the past 100 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
I use that wiki link/summation to TRUMP all the other dithering arguments that are used: ice sheets/perma frost disappearing all over the world and then someone like you will say but in Antarctica the ice is growing. Or–its getting cold where I live==confusing weather with climate and small local conditions with world wide averages and so forth.
Sea Level Rise also takes care of “somebody” predicted something and it didn’t come true therefore AGW is wrong. Sea Level is not a prediction: it is a measurement. If you want to change the measurements taken from Amsterdam and Australian historic records: go ahead. Change the satelite measurements: go ahead.
Then go ahead and confuse the PROJECTIONS with predictions. It has been calculated that IF — IF — certain Ice Sheets Melted or slid off of Greenland or Antarctica that SL could rise by many meters. That prediction is not made by IPCC, it is only a calculation that cannot be argued with as it is simple math. IF—THEN. If the temp continues to go up from 1-4 degrees, then in 100-200 years the IPCC does estimate/calculate/project/predict ((I don’t know the exact wording they use)) that SL will go up so many ml, or even cm. Yes, wide variation and not specific. Guess what? === if you want detailed certainty, you are asking for religion and dogma, not science.
Yes—NOT science.
Defective counter arguments and incorrect statements by non-experts does not prove the theory of AGW==but they also don’t support negating it.
Sorry Losers. You haven’t made a sane/scientific argument yet. Nothing but errors.
Silly Hoomans. Mostly Devo.
Mike==you are still a puzzle to me. Lets see if you said anything worth commenting on as others might stumble across your confusion:
#89–so, you don’t understand what the tipping point in Climate Science is huh? That surprises me what with your history of expertise on this subject as posted in the past. Organic Brain Damage or just a liar? Yes, Mickey==you are a puzzle to me.
tipping point: estimated at 350PPM that once passed even if massive programs are instituted to halt co2 pollution to that level, the earth has warmed so much by then that catastrophic global warming will continue eventually melting enough ice to raise sea level by 10’s of meters wiping out most coastal cities and causing half the worlds population to move 5 miles inland while 40% of the earths most productive crop growing land disappears or becomes unusable due to changes in rain patterns and what not.
Yes, we are past that tipping point and many AGW scientists have given up: catastrophe is coming. Faster than originally estimated as the rate of pollution is increasing, NOT even decreasing, and never to get back below 350 ppm until human carbon buring is in fact disrupted.
Mickey. Heating and Melting have a lag time. Put an ice cube over a direct flame. Does the ice cube melt instantly–or does it take some time even when ice is exposed to FIRE!!!! ((Fire–I’ll teach you to burn….))
Just that simple Mickey. How can you post so moronically?
Regarding what might be “ok” to wade thru: cgp link to Dr. Vincent Courtillot. That kind of purposeful manipulation of evidence is why I started using the Sea Level Data. Only an Earth that is heating will have oceans rise.
When Dr. Courtillot addresses that “observation”, let me know.