ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 07/24/2014 04:20 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Science
Global Warming "Pause" Linked to Natural Fluctuation
Smoking Linked to Increased Suicide Risk
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Will you watch the World Cup final?
  Latest Events
07/23/2014 11:09 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'J.K. Rowling Says She Has at Least Six More Cormoran Strike Novels in the Works'
07/23/2014 04:08 PM
flatdog receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Michigan Woman Pulls Out Gun "to Make a Point", Accidentally Shoots Herself in the Face'
  2.119 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/01/2011 06:52 PM ID: 87752 Permalink   

Sun, Clouds, Oceans Drive Climate, Not C02

 

Azko Nobel researcher Dr. Noor van Andel gave a presentation at the Dutch Meteorological Institute concluding that there is no observational evidence to link CO2 emissions on climate change past or present.

While clouds and oceans dominating the vast majority of the planet solar magnetic effects alter climate by reacting with the water altering climate.

Cloud cover statistics correlate directly with the temperature increase that began in 1984, as cloud cover fell by 4 percent.

 
  Source: joannenova.com.au  
    WebReporter: Tetsuru Uzuki Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  24 Comments
  
  I just dont know what to beleive anymore  
 
I guess I will have to go out and do the research myself.
 
  by: calculon   02/01/2011 08:38 PM     
  Akzo Nobel  
 
Akzo Nobel Inc. works hard to create the right chemistry. The US and Canadian subsidiary of Dutch paints and chemicals giant Akzo Nobel N.V., the company develops and makes chemicals, coatings, and health care products. Its chemicals business includes catalysts, functional chemicals, polymers, pulp and paper chemicals, and surfactants. The coatings sector includes car refinishes, decorative coatings, and industrial coatings and finishes. While the parent company is the world´s largest coatings maker, its American subsidiary traditionally has been driven by its chemicals business.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/...
 
  by: kmazzawi     02/01/2011 08:54 PM     
  Anxiously Awaiting Peer Revue  
 
of this. The Nobel in the name is deceptive, it leads to drawing a false assumption to the accreditation of the doctor. Thanks Kmazzawi

[ edited by ichi ]
 
  by: ichi     02/01/2011 08:54 PM     
  This is from a guy...  
 
that works for a chemical + paint company?

Well, this means we can keep burning through cheap oil, we´re saved!

With such a grand find, how about peer reviewing this ground breaking discovery before a group of subject experts and contribute the find to a scientific journal?

Ooooh, that´s right. It´s a lot of work, and most of this fluff stuff gets chopped up pretty quick before a panel of subject experts...

News can be made by monkey´s on unicycles, science is made by defending your claim in peer review.

 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/01/2011 09:12 PM     
  @kmazzawi  
 
They make Eco paint and plastic. Its a pretty green company. That link you gave doesn?t really indicate that. For instance if you?ve ever seen plastic cups that say "Made from Corn, 100% bo-degradable". They also make to go boxes etc made from potatoes. I work at a facility which uses only green products and the cafeteria has all Azko disposable forks and knives made from corn.

P.S. Google Corn Plastic

[ edited by Tetsuru Uzuki ]
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     02/01/2011 09:15 PM     
  ...  
 
Here´s a partial history lesson base on what I read on a poster while on the shitter working at ICI Paints...

Glidden was founded in the 1870´s developing food products, chemicals and such.

DuPont was founded in the 1800´s also developing chemicals and coatings, but also developed and supplied gun powder for the wars followed

DuPont was acquired by ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) in 1907.

Glidden´s paint division and Color Your World was acquired by ICI in the 1990´s to form ICI Paints

Akzo Nobel acquired Mills Paints, ICI Paints Competitor, in the 2000ish

Akzo Nobel acquired ICI Paint division in 2007

Of course I´m just talking about the paint divisions, but paints and coatings are what keeps the metal on your bridges from rusting among a lot of other structures and applications... (boats, buildings, cars, etc.)

And through all the acquisitions and mergers ICI Paints became No. 1 in the paint industry... However, they still cant manage to match a simple off-white color, call me an disgruntled ex-employee, but they lost focus when they were acquiring and merging companies.
~~~~~~

As for this story, I heard about a similiar theory in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary refuting Al Gore´s watchamacallit.

I believe in climate change, some life goes extinct as a result, I dont agree however in putting humans at fault completely, we destroy habitat but I dont think Old Man Winter is a the top of the hierarchy.
 
  by: makrollins   02/01/2011 11:03 PM     
  The temperature has been increasing...  
 
since the early 20th century possibly before that. Captain Scott discovered ice thinning during his expidition. It´s clear the industrial revolution started it and the explosion in human population.

Even if this Azko guy is correct, should´nt we still reduce CO2 and use cleaner technology anyway? Be nice if we didn´t pollute this lovely planet of ours, ever seen pictures of Venus?

The destruction of the rainforests has to stop period!

In any case CO2 is meant to be a trace element in the air. I can´t see how increasing CO2 and decreasing the forests that use it up is not affecting anything.

 
  by: MalcolmB   02/01/2011 11:27 PM     
  @MalcolmB  
 
CO2 is not a trace element, is is what plants breath and a building block of life. CO2 isn´t dirty, so there is no cleaner alternative. Now there are lots of other things and horrible pollutants released by burning oil and coal. CO2 isn´t one of them, its what plants breath and animals exhale.

Quite frankly its one of the least impacting substances emitted by industry, and everyone and everything produces it. Thats why there is such a drive to tax it and paint it bad. Its taxing the very air we breath.

Mining and farming run-off is a much greater environmental problem then CO2. Its really almost religious devotion people have now for blaming it for everything with no real scientific basis besides some special interest globalist wanting a world tax and paying people to produce propaganda reports.

There are plenty of reasons to stop using coal and oil, but CO2 isn´t one of them.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     02/01/2011 11:50 PM     
  good post  
 
Because I didn´t use my time to do the study.

Its so hard for people to look at all this information and not be overwhelmed.

But what will be the negative of all these studies is people holding modern day pitchforks and not trying to figure out how to use this information, but rather to tear each other apart. Maybe not.


So Andel suggest there is no link, and I think a few others I´ve read. http://www.edf.org/... This link say a thousand or so have agreement
"Scientists are no longer debating the basic facts of climate change. In February 2007, the thousands of scientific experts collectively known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that there is greater than 90 percent likelihood that people are causing global warming. (IPCC, 2007)"

This issue is just very complicated once its put on the air and people hear this in between political squabbles and horror stories.
 
  by: MannyisHere     02/02/2011 04:56 AM     
  @TU  
 
"Thats why there is such a drive to tax it and paint it bad."

What does it matter to you if the tax is because the law sez you have to pay 30% tax this year, or whether the law sez you have to pay taxes because Mickey Mouse is hungry? You are still going to pay 30%.

There are countries that are getting a large percentage of their electriciy from burning coal and some from burning wood. Burning coal has to become more expensive. You can not go and tell china to pay for burning coal yet your own coutnry can burn free willy nilly.

You are already paying billions out in aid, you will continue paying the same billions except you will be forcing them to stop burning coal. So get over it.
 
  by: kmazzawi     02/02/2011 04:00 PM     
  @kmazzawi  
 
If you real all the Kyoto protocol, and just about every other "Carbon" treaty. China and India are exempt from the restrictions, and only the United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, and the EU have to reduce emissions. Russia has refused all treaties anyway, and China is immune.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     02/02/2011 04:05 PM     
  @TU  
 
yes, there is a lot of things that china refuses to do, like having a half decent human rights record, or stopping the habit of billing the family of executed political prisoners for the price of the bullet.

first u sign and then you get the moral high ground to tariff the shit out of them.
 
  by: kmazzawi     02/02/2011 04:27 PM     
  Hey, Libs have a name for you, TU!  
 
You are a Climate Change DENIER!!

Quit denying, you DENIER!

You are in climate change denial, DENIER!

But if you agree with us, you are an ACTIVIST.
 
  by: moxpearl   02/02/2011 05:32 PM     
  @Kamwazzi  
 
"first u sign and then you get the moral high ground to tariff the shit out of them"

Holy Crap!! I fell out of my chair laughing on that one! Now, dont get me wrong, I would be all for it, BUT

Good luck "tariffing the shit" out of China. What is the opposite of Bi-Partisan support? Whatever it is, that is what you´ll get trying that route.

Our economy is in shambles, and China holds our gonads. So we are going to limit ourselves even more and beg our new overlords to do the same, on a moral high ground? Not gonna happen.

It is nice in theory though, I´ll give you taht.
 
  by: moxpearl   02/02/2011 05:35 PM     
  @Mox  
 
Yes, you will tariff china. They want to sell their trinkets inside your borders, so you tariff them. Everybody else who signed the agreement will do the same. Now get off the floor, dust yourself a bit and sit back on the chair. It is not my fault the economic doctrines implemented since Reagan are screwing you today on the international scece, and that the days when america or the russians can just go and tell people what to do are a bit behind us. If you want to tariff people, you have to have the moral high ground first.
 
  by: kmazzawi     02/02/2011 05:57 PM     
  @moxpearl  
 
I notice a patter, people who claim to be conservative or Tea-party
say

You are a Climate Change Monger!!

Quit talking about it, you Alarmist!

You are in climate change alarmist, alarmist!

But if you agree with us, you are an ACTIVIST.


Why do people keep this going, its not helping out in anyway.

I´m not really trying to zing you but, this sounds less and less about science and more about fanaticism.
 
  by: MannyisHere     02/02/2011 07:08 PM     
  @TU  
 
Good find. Out off all the crazy things you´ve said on SN I am glade you still show a fervor for the truth.
 
  by: vhan     02/02/2011 09:05 PM     
  @Vhan  
 
You mean a fervor for the Truth, or a fervor for agreeing with your view of the world. I am not asking to be mean.

[ edited by kmazzawi ]
 
  by: kmazzawi     02/02/2011 10:40 PM     
  @TU  
 
Your reply to my post is bewildering.

"CO2 is not a trace element"
Well seeing that at the moment CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 0.0387% Ithink that is a very low amount. There isn?t meant to be tonnes and tonnes of carbon in the air. If you consider, in the past, that there was a lot more vegetation and a lot lower CO2 concentration than at present it is clear that plant life can thrive on very low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Clearing forests and burning tonnes of stored carbon releasing it into the atmosphere where it has never been before therfore increasing atmospheric concentration MUST have some sort of effect on the planet.

"carbon is the building block of life."
Precisely! It is meant to be in life forms, vegetation, animals, etc. Not dumped into the atmosphere. If it is dumped anywhere it should be in the ground where it belongs. How is the carbon going to be removed from the atmosphere and recycled into to life forms? Trees? We are clear-cutting them all.

"CO2 isn?t dirty, so there is no cleaner alternative. "
This statement begars belief! Are you trying to tell me that a technology that doesn?t release CO2 isn?t cleaner than one that does? Why swap gas lighting and coal fires for electricity? Because it is cleaner, at your end at least, depends on how it is produced. Coal fires were very ?dirty?. Ever heard of chimney sweeps? CO2 isn?t dirty? What about all the low air quality and smog smothering our cities?

During the last 3 or 4 ice ages CO2 concentrations have never risen above about 300ppmv. In the last couple of hundred years it has risen to almost 400! In that same time the Earth?s temperature has risen also.

[ edited by MalcolmB ]
 
  by: MalcolmB   02/03/2011 03:16 AM     
  @MalcolmB  
 
Your going off of disproved assumptions.

During ice ages there is less bio-diversity, and less life in general. As a result, less CO2 is produced during die offs due to ice ages. CO2 increases following them are caused by life booming, as warming temperatures create more ecosystem that support CO2 producing life.

You have been lied to my friend. Its time to wake up. All historical data shows ice ages happening prior to CO2 emission drops, and that the ice ages themselves, cause the drops in CO2. 300ppm is a laughably low amount compared to the past.

During the Cambrian age, in which earth supported the most life. The atmosphere had 7000 ppm of CO2. During the Carboniferous period it dropped back down to around 400 during an extinction event. Then it eventually made it back to 3000 during the Triassic and Jurassic periods.

You have it backwards my friend. Temperatures effect CO2 levels because they effect the life cycle, not the other way around.



[ edited by Tetsuru Uzuki ]
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     02/03/2011 04:46 PM     
  @TU  
 
I forgot to add, there is cleaner alternatives because the technology that spews out CO2 also spews out other ´dirty´ pollutants. Ever heard of Carbon Monoxide? Sulphur Dioxide? Or do you deny the existance of Acid Rain too just so you don´t have to change your lifestyle.
My point was and is, whether CO2 is causing global warming or not, whether it is dirty or not we SHOULD change to modern cleaner technology if it is available because that is the natural progression of things, it´s called "progress." and things that churn out CO2 also churn out very nasty things. Try sitting in your garage with the engine running if you don´t believe me. I´d rather try that with a hyrdogen powered car thanks very much.

One last point to clarify my earlier post. While CO2 is not posionous because there is life on Earth that requires it, it is poisonous if there is too much off it. This goes for anything, even Oxygen! Again we need only a little amount of it in the air we breath. Maybe you should go back to high school?

Lastly. It is clear looking back at the history of Earth, there is a balance that keeps the atmosphere within that narrow range. Whether it was put there by God or nature, whatever you believe, it is clear that it is like that for a reason. There must be a very good reason why the CO2 concentration has never been as high as it is today. Nature balances itself out for a reason. The only reason it is happening is because we, for the first time in Earth´s history, is dumping record numbers of gases, CO2 included into the atmosphere and clear-cutting and tarmacing over the vegetation that keeps uses it and keeps it in balance.

Things are there for a reason, even if we don´t understand it and there is hell to pay if you mess around with it.

TRY MESSING AROUND WITH THE DELICATE BALANCE OF HORMONES IN YOUR BODY IF YOU DON´T BELIEVE ME!
 
  by: MalcolmB   02/04/2011 01:41 AM     
  @TU  
 
and what was the concentration of the other gases in the atmosphere? I am sure the ratio was maintained and how do you know that when the CO2 was high that there was any life at all.

All the research I´ve looked at the CO2 has never gone above 300. If the CO2 did go up to 7000 as you claim and there was a lot of vegetation how did that happen? All the plant life would have soaked it up, it would never get that high. To be that high there would have to be little carbon based life on the surface for it all to be in the air.
 
  by: MalcolmB   02/04/2011 01:44 AM     
  @MalcolmB  
 
A) I have been in a 100% Oxygen chamber. I assure you it was not fatal, and I felt great for a few days after only spending an hour in it.

B) Exactly my point 7000 ppm has no negative effects. That was the level had during earths most bio-diverse era. If you´ve never seen that in your "research" you might want to look into the material your using, because this is high school level stuff.
 
  by: EPICREPORTER   02/04/2011 03:33 AM     
  @EPICREPORTER  
 
Actually they don´t teach it in school anymore. At least not when I was there. They´ve been dumbing down text books for decades now.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     02/04/2011 04:04 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com