Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/
and you now are a climate change denier. doubt is heresy, and questions mean you havent read "Earth In The Balance" often enough, and should probably play the audio from "An Inconvenient Truth" through your headphones while you sleep, just to help it sink in.

also national geographic is racist.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/
and you now are a climate change denier. doubt is heresy, and questions mean you havent read "Earth In The Balance" often enough, and should probably play the audio from "An Inconvenient Truth" through your headphones while you sleep, just to help it sink in.

also national geographic is racist.
it would help if you both read the article rather than just the headline

"This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.
So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.
That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small."

"
Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?
Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.
The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet."
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
again, storage for their own use at a later date, storage for short term cooling before disposal etc are NOT long term disposaal entombment, or vitrification, and low level waste (which includes rags used to wipe down anything more radioactive than a colour tv's screen if it's in a nuclear facility) is NOT the hot rods and highly radioactive by-products of powerplants. low level radioactive waste is NOT what i was talking about and you well know this. forther, yes, britain MAY if they so desire, abrogate their eresponsibility, the CAN if they wish stop keeping spent nuclear rods and whatnot, and the COULD if they wished let the IAEA handle their fissionable wastes for them.

and thats the key FISSIONABLE MATERIALS not empty soup cans from the reactor facility's cafeteria (which yes are sometimes classified as low level waste) or contaminated silt from uraium mining operations, or that tiny nugget of slightly radioactive shit in your smoke detector.

fissionable materials are what i was talkng about, what i was referring to, and exactly the issue, not the low level mildly radioactive, barely higher than background radiation bullshit you keep dragging up.

fissionable materials are handled by VERY few nations, despite MANY nations having nuclear reactors that use fissionable materials. one small load of fissionable materials being sent to britain resulted in riots when word leaked out, one large shipment through the east bay of fissionable materials from several asian countries(again not low level waste incidentally used at a nuclear facility, but actual nuclear waste) resulted in months of protests and berkeley declaring itself a "nuclear free zone". thats why the NRC the IAEA and the various national nuclear agencies around the world dont put out press releases on every shipment of new nuclear fuels, or spent ones when they transfer them.

australia, a nation with no nuclear arms, DOES mine and manufacture nuclear fuel rods, and other fissionable materials, and they are careful to ensure that they ONLY send the shit out to nations who will NOT be making weapons, and with the IAEA's help they try to ensure that the spent material (not the fucking rags, paper towels and paint chips) are sent BACK to australia when they are used up (so that it does not get diverted into nuclear weapons programs or the hands of terrorists) or some other responsible agency (which almost invariably winds up being the US). the website you referenced makes a LOT of discussion of short term storage, the issues of transportation and discussion of fissionable materials being sent from one nation to another, but they neglect to mention where the stuff goes when it is finished, and past it's useful life, save for those specific instances that are already public record (such as britain's reprocessing deal with japan or the US lend/lease fuel program) they keep the rest of the facts on the low-low with good reason. the closest they get is discussing the HUGE numbers of fissionable materials brought into and out of the US every year, but the details are conspicuously absent.

where the used fuel rods we get so much of here in the us come from is the dirty little secret of the IAEA the NRC and the DOE. where they wind up is even more secret. most people in the sacramento valley have no idea that rancho stinko's colling and holdign pools and cask storage is full. theyassume since rancho stinko only ran for a few years at very low capacity, that theres nothing in there but dust, cobwebs and a few mice. nothing is further from the truth. that facility is maxed out. and since we dont have many nuclear plants in the US, much of the stuff in rancho seco is probably from foreign lands, but the details are classified.

to prevent public outcry.

The US alos has a large fleet of nuclear powered vessels in our navy. much of the fuel and the resulting waste is handled internally, but they are also known to act as a shipping service for spent fuel rods from several nation, and to have brough the spent fissionable materials into the US from foreign lands through their bases in Port Chicago, Newport, oakland long beach and new jersey.
yeah yeah yeah keep typing you still havent shown a thing
 

MoonRaver

Active Member
Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?
it would help if you learnt about climate science before you try dictating what they need to do ;)
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?
That's a good idea on paper, but what would you suggest we do if we don't have a few hundred years left to measure the climate? What if the climate changed so drastically in a couple hundred years to make current living situations uninhabitable?

I'm not saying it'll be overnight like the movies, but what if we only have a couple decades to change things? Could we do it?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Welp, so much for global warming. NatGeo just published an article showing that the antarctic sea ice grew the largest it ever this year. This coming from a mainstream outlet..... I don't know what to believe.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/
I re-bumped the thread with this fact you have also found. I won't go again over the implication I see, but if you read back, it's there. Science is not belief. What does it matter what we believe? What are you going to do different one are another, except in politics?

The issue is simple and not resolved in Science.

Is Cloud Effect a Closed Loop system re: moderating Earth temp?

The AGW types have ignored this. They have DECIDED for political purposes that it is open-loop.
Not moderating but causing GW.

They point to puke data or they point to only 30 years of Sat data.

But, what are the periods? Not decades. No even centuries. We are in the peak of the Inter-Ice Age cycle by most accounts. Of course, it is getting warmer. But, at some point we may see freeze of the oceans and only our urban heat bubble can save mankind. The current crop of hucksters will have sucked the teat of our stupid money, traded round the Carbon Credits and are now long dead.

No harm done. Just another stupid test. Really, who cares? It's all fear based manipulation for political carbon coin.

Year over year gains in Spreading sea ice is a cooling phenomena and points to Closed Loop Cloud Effect, imo.
This is the inconvenient fact of the still specious argument for AGW.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Well, how about we record a couple more hundred years worth of temperature data from various places around the globe so we can get a feel for what we have done. I am no climate change denier, the climate is always changing. C'mon, most of us know that natives Americans were able to grow corn in areas that are now no longer able to even accumulate enough rainfall to grow dandelions. Wonder what made that happen?
We wonder. But that is not the point. You really mean fear, don't you? And that is the political, not scientific point made on you.

Politics of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD factor. Climates change as the Thread title suggests. Why are we being FUDed?

A few more hundred years of good data may show Global Cooling. We don't know.

Boycott FUD!
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I re-bumped the thread with this fact you have also found. I won't go again over the implication I see, but if you read back, it's there. Science is not belief. What does it matter what we believe? What are you going to do different one are another, except in politics?

The issue is simple and not resolved in Science.

Is Cloud Effect a Closed Loop system re: moderating Earth temp?

The AGW types have ignored this. They have DECIDED for political purposes that it is open-loop.
Not moderating but causing GW.

They point to puke data or they point to only 30 years of Sat data.

But, what are the periods? Not decades. No even centuries. We are in the peak of the Inter-Ice Age cycle by most accounts. Of course, it is getting warmer. But, at some point we may see freeze of the oceans and only our urban heat bubble can save mankind. The current crop of hucksters will have sucked the teat of our stupid money, traded round the Carbon Credits and are now long dead.

No harm done. Just another stupid test. Really, who cares? It's all fear based manipulation for political carbon coin.

Year over year gains in Spreading sea ice is a cooling phenomena and points to Closed Loop Cloud Effect, imo.
This is the inconvenient fact of the still specious argument for AGW.
and you still wont point out which scientist is proposing "cloud effect" heck your not even defining "cloud effect"your just repeating it as if its the be all and end all

you talking about this guy Richard Lindzen?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Never heard of him...

I keep saying it is Science and no one has yet to propose a Model that can be verified against any data set. When that happens, then that model can be run, and improved to study the entire workings of CE.

In Science, CE is being observed, as I said, papers are being written. But no Model, no Theory. Please understand that GW and AGW are just side shows in the Science of Cloud Effect.

So, instead of just constantly insisting that I am regurgitating, as you have done on other topics, please act as if you understand this concept. I am not in Politics or am I into spoon fed opinions.


Go stand in the shade and see for yourself . And stop acting like CE is some kook opposition to your left agenda.

You are on the hook, to show, if you can, a single, verifiable model of CE showing closed-loop. I don't have to prove a thing, since my position is that things remain un-proved.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Never heard of him...

I keep saying it is Science and no one has yet to propose a Model that can be verified against any data set. When that happens, then that model can be run, and improved to study the entire workings of CE.

In Science, CE is being observed, as I said, papers are being written. But no Model, no Theory. Please understand that GW and AGW are just side shows in the Science of Cloud Effect.

So, instead of just constantly insisting that I am regurgitating, as you have done on other topics, please act as if you understand
this concept. I am not in Politics or am I into spoon fed opinions.


Go stand in the shade and see for yourself . And stop acting like CE is some kook opposition to your left agenda.

You are on the hook, to show, if you can, a single, verifiable model of CE showing closed-loop. I don't have to prove a thing, since my position is that things remain un-proved.
they havent shown a model that takes into account the effect if i masturbate with my left hand or my right hand and that contribution to gloabl warming

what im asking from you is the evidence that the models arent correct (with or without cloud effect)

and the reasons/ sources of your theory of cloud effect

without any of that your an "armchair scientist" who's decided the vast majority of climate scientists wrong thru your own uninformed deductions and if thats all you are you should write your own thesis this discovery of yours would win you a nobel if "true"
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
You just are not listening.

A- There is no unified model of Climate without Cloud Effect. You swerve to profane in your fallacies, but it means not much to me, beyond showing in-articulation.

B- I keep saying there is no model and thus no Theory of Cloud Effect. Put my statements, A + B and you see there cannot be a Model or Theory of Climate much less of Warming of any kind even though if we squint at the sparse data and think we see "something. There is no scientific proof of AGW at all, at this time. There is only Political strife to confuse the young scientists.

No full account of Cloud Effect means no Climate Theory.

And I have plainly said, though you don't like it, the entire question of warning is not science. It is foregone conclusion. It is bastard science to attempt to prove conclusions.

Sad for you, perhaps, but, there is no political right-fight, for me. Right-fight is the opiate of the masses.

I don't have to believe or prove. It is Science. And is not belief, but investigation to arrive at experimentally repeatable results. Without that it is simply the politics of multi-generational mind control....Left Agenda. That's it.

I have said that nothing is proven and yet you insist on this idea that I need to "prove" something to you. But, you are mired in belief.

Are you just being dense? Out of ideas? Stooping to derision, like your kind does when challenged.
Sarcasm is political, not Science.

Stupid is voting for political belief in Science:
"without any of that your an "armchair scientist" who's decided the vast majority of climate scientists wrong thru your own uninformed deductions and if thats all you are you should write your own thesis this discovery of yours would win you a nobel if "true" ."

You say what I should do? As a smarry insult? That isn't Science. It's politics.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
You just are not listening.

A- There is no unified model of Climate without Cloud Effect. You swerve to profane in your fallacies, but it means not much to me, beyond showing in-articulation.

B- I keep saying there is no model and thus no Theory of Cloud Effect. Put my statements, A + B and you see there cannot be a Model or Theory of Climate much less of Warming of any kind even though if we squint at the sparse data and think we see "something. There is no scientific proof of AGW at all, at this time. There is only Political strife to confuse the young scientists.

No full account of Cloud Effect means no Climate Theory.

And I have plainly said, though you don't like it, the entire question of warning is not science. It is foregone conclusion. It is bastard science to attempt to prove conclusions.

Sad for you, perhaps, but, there is no political right-fight, for me. Right-fight is the opiate of the masses.

I don't have to believe or prove. It is Science. And is not belief, but investigation to arrive at experimentally repeatable results. Without that it is simply the politics of multi-generational mind control....Left Agenda. That's it.

I have said that nothing is proven and yet you insist on this idea that I need to "prove" something to you. But, you are mired in belief.

Are you just being dense? Out of ideas? Stooping to derision, like your kind does when challenged.
Sarcasm is political, not Science.

Stupid is voting for political belief in Science:
"without any of that your an "armchair scientist" who's decided the vast majority of climate scientists wrong thru your own uninformed deductions and if thats all you are you should write your own thesis this discovery of yours would win you a nobel if "true" ."

You say what I should do? As a smarry insult? That isn't Science. It's politics.
A. Show your work
B. Show your work

mr armchair "scientist" you
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
the work is on going. there, is at present, a hissing only, from political name callers....which is not science, you armchair, thinkingless, opinion fed 'droid.

Show my work on A? There is no consensus on A or B. Tard.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
the work is on going. there, is at present, a hissing only, from political name callers....which is not science, you armchair, thinkingless, opinion fed 'droid.

Show my work on A? There is no consensus on A or B. Tard.
i know theres lots of work being done by people who are qualified to do such work

what are you credentials for saying they are all wrong?

what are your findings that lead you to this discovery?

show your work
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Just went back and reviewed the early parts of this thread and Mr. M rightly said he thinks the evidence is "mounting up" for negative cloud feedback. This is a detail of Cloud Effect that is the point. I say rightly, in that the comment is a solid, scientific point of view.

But, I disagree with the idea, as does he, perhaps, that all the Science is done. I disagree that it's time to plan for and spend Trillions of Dollars on Climate modification boondoggles for political power.

Yes, to the study of Climate. No to attempting to prove a fore gone conclusion. Yawn to name callers.

Do you know what a right-fight is? Someone is so immature that he just has to be Right and is compelled to try to brand the other guy, technically and actually WRONG, for EGO? It's politics. Not science. I'm not saying anything is wrong in the Science.

I say you can't prove anything without a model for Cloud Effect that shows negative feedback.

It's not just a term I made up, BTW. I posted links for a Cloud Conference in England last year. No GW or AGW consensus. No cogent models, no Theory proposed.

And even if you show negative feedback into the atmosphere, you still have to model the heat transfers into the ocean mass and back.

That could be positive feedback of a longer period. Ice Age periods, perhaps.

I happen to have a degree in Physics, a big interest Computational fluid dynamics and simulation modeling in general. I manage Computer Scientists in the research dept for software compilation techniques to drive new hardware processor concepts.

I am trained and experienced to form my own, professional, scientific opinions...not that I care what you think.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I happen to have a degree in Physics, a big interest Computational fluid dynamics and simulation modeling in general. I manage Computer Scientists in the research dept for software compilation techniques to drive new hardware processor concepts.

I am trained and experienced to form my own, professional, scientific opinions...not that I care what you think.
good you'l have no problem at all showing your work then damn there really could be a nobel in it for you
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
I'm not engaged in Climate Research. I am following Cloud Effect for the dynamic modeling problems from a hardware processor, point of view. Weather modeling, in general, is one of our on-going research paths. So, a patent for an improved algorithm in dynamic modeling
or a technique to off-load CPU to GPU processing is what we are after.

What do you you?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I'm not engaged in Climate Research. I am following Cloud Effect for the dynamic modeling problems from a hardware processor, point of view. Weather modeling, in general, is one of our on-going research paths. So, a patent for an improved algorithm in dynamic modeling
or a technique to off-load CPU to GPU processing is what we are after.

What do you you?
i'm not the one claiming to have turned over the consensus of climate scientists my credentials are irrelevant

so you say you got all the hardware there in front of you and you have a degree in physics and computer modeling

well you sound just perfect to be someone to blow away agw theory. why dont you get the models and data sets and run them yourself and write a paper on how they are wrong

obviously you would have to go get better information than what you get from this site you linked at beginning
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

nobel must be just in reach for you
 
Top