Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Zoom-boing, Sep 2, 2011.

  1. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,071
    Thanks Received:
    7,261
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,130
    Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN - International Business Times
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Yep.

    That tears it.

    Dumping tons of crap into the atmosphere has no effect what so ever.

    It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

    :lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I think its a drop dead certainty that the primary cause of heat on earth is the sun.

    And it follows that as the suns activity changes (as it does from time to time) that is going to effect the earth's atmosphere.

    Of course that does NOT imply that nothing else can effect the atmosphere.

    WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.

    The issue for our consideration is not DO THESE THINGS CHANGE CLIMATE? but HOW MUCH DO THERE DIFFERENT PHEMOMENA CHANGE THE CLIMATE?

    Looks to me like the experts are not of one mind in regard to that question.

    I can live with that uncertainty.

    Apparently many of you cannot.

    Such is life.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  4. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,495
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,046
    I can live with the uncertainty, as long as the results from the various opinions are not used as an excuse to massively increase government's involvment in daily life.

    The AGW crowd seems to think only massive government regulation and intrusion can save us from AGW.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    agreed. there is a cycle of life, which we learned more of after the 2 billion ( in 1980-90s' dollars) boondoggle, oops, I mean study of 'acid rain' and depletion of ponds lakes etc.

    Being a good steward of the environment makes sense to me both aesthetically and naturally, but some folks don't recognize a line between the known, unknown and how to cope rationally with that fact, so they , lets say overcompensate, to be kind.

    Folks like Al Gore and Patrick Moore ( founder of Greenpeace) both had their hearts in the right place, however, one became totally unhinged and is in fact hurting his own cause, the other recognized that politics had taken over and excused himself from his own organization recognizing that it had become a 'grind your axe' football.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 5
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,620
    Thanks Received:
    5,429
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,414
    ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change

    How Do We Know That Cosmic Rays Aren’t Driving Significant Climatic Change?

    In reference to the present anthropogenic climatic changes that we’re driving through alteration of the planetary energy balance notably through greenhouse gas emissions, we can theorize what certain “fingerprints” of enhanced greenhouse warming should look like, and examine observational data to see whether those fingerprints show up. And they do.

    Moreover, we can examine the claims made by Svensmark, Shaviv, and others who proclaim GCRs drive climate and see whether or not they hold up. They don’t:

    We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).

    We can examine the change in GCRs in response to solar variability over recent decades or the course of a solar cycle, and find there is no or little corresponding change in climate (Lockwood 2007, Lockwood 2008, Kulmala 2010).

    We can look at alleged correlations between GCRs and climate in the geologic past due to our sun passing through galactic spiral arms, and find that these “correlations” were based on an unrealistic, overly-simplified model of spiral structure and are not valid (Overholt 2009). Standard climatic processes (like CO2) more parsimoniously explained the climatic changes even before taking the flawed spiral model into account (Rahmstorf 2004).

    We can examine the specific mechanisms by which Svensmark and others have claimed GCRs influence climate via cloud behavior and show that alleged correlations between GCRs and clouds were incorrectly calculated or insufficiently large, proposed mechanisms (e.g. Forbush decreases) are too short lived, too small in magnitude, or otherwise incapable of altering cloud behavior on a large enough scale to drive significant climatic change (Sloan 2008, Erlykin 2009, Erlykin 2009a, Pierce 2009, Calogovic 2010, Snow-Kropla 2011, Erlykin 2011).

    Basically, what’s actually been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. isn’t at odds with the IPCC. What is at odds with the IPCC hasn’t been demonstrated by Kirkby, et al. And the claims by Svensmark, Shaviv, and other ‘GCRs drive climate’ proponents have been debunked at pretty much every step of the way. GCRs may have some influence on cloud behavior, but they’re not responsible for significant climatic changes now or in the geologic past
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Wow....You've been a one-man regiment of strawmen lately. :lol:
     
  8. Ernie S.
    Offline

    Ernie S. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Messages:
    33,694
    Thanks Received:
    7,731
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Ratings:
    +12,500
    We dumped tons more crap into the atmosphere 40 years ago when you climate change idiots were yelling that we were doomed to freeze to death. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Get over it and find a new calamity to exploit.
     
  9. Ernie S.
    Offline

    Ernie S. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Messages:
    33,694
    Thanks Received:
    7,731
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Ratings:
    +12,500
    must spread....
    :clap2::clap2::clap2:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,620
    Thanks Received:
    5,429
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,414
    Another fucking ignoramous, or purposeful liar. There was not a consensus of an immenent ice age 40 years ago. Another lie from an obese drugged out radio jock and other liars.

    Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

    The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
     

Share This Page