Heat to soar to record levels in next 5 years.

[Weatherman2020]

That's because you're scientifically illiterate.

Maunder Minimum means what?
Earth is naturally warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's because you're scientifically illiterate.

Tell us again how men can lactate and give birth

 

[odanny]

No, I'm a conglomerate. This is the last lie I will hear from your traitor faggot ass. Bye molester.

Fucking weirdo.

 

[Weatherman2020]

But, but...whatabout Mars?!

Why is Mars warming?
Fossil fuels!!!

 

[Crick]

Why is Mars warming?
Fossil fuels!!!

Maunder Minimum means what?
Earth is naturally warming.

Maunder Minimum is long past.

Total solar irradiance / TSI - weather.plus

Total solar irradiance / TSI

weather.plus

And note the time scale and the range of values covered. On the horizontal axis we see the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle. On the vertical scale, we see that the sun's total irradiance is regularly varying from 1361.5 to 1362.5, a swing of 73 thousandths of one percent.

 

[multivita-man]

Why is Mars warming?
Fossil fuels!!!

I don't know, talk to Tesla Jesus about booking a flight there and let us know what you find.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I don't know, talk to Tesla Jesus about booking a flight there and let us know what you find.

What kind of dumbass thinks mankind is controlling the earths weather while Mars weather is changing in the same manner?

A TOTAL dumbass.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Maunder Minimum is long past.

Total solar irradiance / TSI - weather.plus

Total solar irradiance / TSI

weather.plus

And note the time scale and the range of values covered. On the horizontal axis we see the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle. On the vertical scale, we see that the sun's total irradiance is regularly varying from 1361.5 to 1362.5, a swing of 73 thousandths of one percent.

Science hater thinks ice ages end immediately.

Call me when palm trees return to Alaska.

 

[multivita-man]

What kind of dumbass thinks mankind is controlling the earths weather

Who said anything about "controlling" the weather -- you need to go find your tinfoil hat and wear it.

while Mars weather is changing in the same manner?

Climate, not weather. That you confuse the two is evidence you don't understand what you're discussing.

A TOTAL dumbass.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Who said anything about "controlling" the weather -- you need to go find your tinfoil hat and wear it.




Climate, not weather. That you confuse the two is evidence you don't understand what you're discussing.

Who said anything about "controlling" the weather -- you need to go find your tinfoil hat and wear it.

Then stop trying to force people with this green bs to change the weather.

Climate, not weather. That you confuse the two is evidence you don't understand what you're discussing.

Yet every tornado or hurricane is PROOF of your mythical manmade bs.

 

[miketx]

Who said anything about "controlling" the weather -- you need to go find your tinfoil hat and wear it.




Climate, not weather. That you confuse the two is evidence you don't understand what you're discussing.

STFU! GD LIAR.

 

[multivita-man]

Then stop trying to force people with this green bs to change the weather.

Here ya go, kid.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/weather-and-climate/#:~:text=Weather%20is%20a%20specific%20event,Earth's%20climate%20is%20getting%20warmer.

Weather And Climate​

The Brief Overview​

Weather is a specific event—like a rainstorm or hot day—that happens over a few hours, days or weeks. Climate is the average weather conditions in a place over 30 years or more. NASA has observed that Earth's climate is getting warmer.

Yet every tornado or hurricane is PROOF of your mythical manmade bs.

Actually, I've never said that and to my knowledge, no credible scientist says that, either. There's no way to credibly argue that a single specific meteorological event is definitively caused by climate change. Climate science isn't about one data point or one event; it's looks at trends and many data points.

But since you're skeptical, we release an estimated 35-40 bln tons of CO2 per year globally. What do you think happen to all that carbon that we release into the atmosphere?

 

[jbrownson0831]

Put a plastic bag over your head and duct tape it securely around your neck.

Talk soon.

Wait, that was the Dimtard Covid facediaper kookbot.

 

[Crick]

Maunder Minimum means what?
Earth is naturally warming.

The Maunder Minimum was a specific event occurring between 1645 and 1715. The solar sunspot index is not abnormally low at present and even if it were, it would not be a "Maunder Minimum", it would just be a new low.

 

[ding]

Global temperatures are likely to soar to record highs over the next five years, driven by human-caused warming and a climate pattern known as El Niño, forecasters at the World Meteorological Organization said on Wednesday.

Awesome. So in 5 short years we will know if they are right or not, right? Of course they didn't really quantify what their soaring means, now did they?

 

[ding]

But since you're skeptical, we release an estimated 35-40 bln tons of CO2 per year globally. What do you think happen to all that carbon that we release into the atmosphere?

The last time I checked 40% to 60% of the CO2 emissions by man ends up in the atmosphere. It seems to vary each year. Of course those estimates assume there is no net contribution from the ocean which have been warming since the last glacial period. So it's hard to calculate exactly how much came from CO2 emission by man. It's really complicated because the ocean is releasing CO2 in some places and taking up CO2 in other places depending upon the seasons and conditions. But nonetheless whatever that amount is it's an extremely small percentage of the material balance of CO2. The last I checked the vast majority of CO2 (something like 94% of all CO2) is in solution in the oceans. In fact the seasonal fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 (~5 ppm or so) is larger than man's annual emissions.

 

[multivita-man]

The last time I checked 40% to 60% of the CO2 emissions by man ends up in the atmosphere. It seems to vary each year. Of course those estimates assume there is no net contribution from the ocean which have been warming since the last glacial period. So it's hard to calculate exactly how much came from CO2 emission by man. It's really complicated because the ocean is releasing CO2 in some places and taking up CO2 in other places depending upon the seasons and conditions. But nonetheless whatever that amount is it's an extremely small percentage of the material balance of CO2. The last I checked the vast majority of CO2 (something like 94% of all CO2) is in solution in the oceans. In fact the seasonal fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 (~5 ppm or so) is larger than man's annual emissions.

Oceans (more specifically the microorganisms and plankton within them) are, like trees, natural carbon sinks. At the same time, however, those carbon sinks have finite capacity to draw down atmospheric carbon. When we pump gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, we are emitting far beyond the earth's carbon processing capacity. All of that excess carbon goes somewhere, either into the sinks and back into the ground or bottom of the sea, or into the atmosphere. Far too much carbon is ending up in places it shouldn't, and that will have - is having - consequences.

 

[multivita-man]

Awesome. So in 5 short years we will know if they are right or not, right?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm personally not a fan of specific short-term predictions about specific weather events, specific climate outcomes, in specific years or by specific datelines. Most credible climate/environmental scientists and casual environmental observes like me know that that's needlessly setting one's self up to be discredited or dismissed. If I say that glacier X is going to collapse by 2030, even if it actually does, in fact, happen by say 2032 or 2035, even, the anti-science trolls can say that we lied or we were way wrong. I don't generally play that game. It's not necessary.

What is generally true is that climate is changing now, and that change is caused largely by human industrial activity. I am sure that there are other natural forces either mitigating or exacerbating these changes. Solar activity, for example, seems to have increased as of late. There was that massive volcanic eruption in Tonga last year. These things happen all the time and they're not to be dismissed, and scientists don't dismiss them.

But none of that changes the reality that massive amounts of human waste product are now likely going to remain in the atmosphere for centuries and this will all but guarantee significant warming effect -- there is little disagreement among credible scientists about this. What scientists still debate is exactly when the worst impacts will occur, what they will be, and how humanity can prepare or mitigate.

Of course they didn't really quantify what their soaring means, now did they?

Right, and of course that leaves skeptics or anti-science trolls to come up with their own definitions. It's a game to them, I guess. It will become less of a game once the price of food and energy soars, and they will probably soar at the same time. Arizonans should have some shocking electric bills in the months ahead, and businesses will pass those onto the consumer.

 

[ding]

Oceans (more specifically the microorganisms and plankton within them) are, like trees, natural carbon sinks. At the same time, however, those carbon sinks have finite capacity to draw down atmospheric carbon. When we pump gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, we are emitting far beyond the earth's carbon processing capacity. All of that excess carbon goes somewhere, either into the sinks and back into the ground or bottom of the sea, or into the atmosphere. Far too much carbon is ending up in places it shouldn't, and that will have - is having - consequences.

How can you say carbon is ending up in places it shouldn’t?

 

[ding]

Maybe, maybe not. I'm personally not a fan of specific short-term predictions about specific weather events, specific climate outcomes, in specific years or by specific datelines. Most credible climate/environmental scientists and casual environmental observes like me know that that's needlessly setting one's self up to be discredited or dismissed. If I say that glacier X is going to collapse by 2030, even if it actually does, in fact, happen by say 2032 or 2035, even, the anti-science trolls can say that we lied or we were way wrong. I don't generally play that game. It's not necessary.

What is generally true is that climate is changing now, and that change is caused largely by human industrial activity. I am sure that there are other natural forces either mitigating or exacerbating these changes. Solar activity, for example, seems to have increased as of late. There was that massive volcanic eruption in Tonga last year. These things happen all the time and they're not to be dismissed, and scientists don't dismiss them.

But none of that changes the reality that massive amounts of human waste product are now likely going to remain in the atmosphere for centuries and this will all but guarantee significant warming effect -- there is little disagreement among credible scientists about this. What scientists still debate is exactly when the worst impacts will occur, what they will be, and how humanity can prepare or mitigate.



Right, and of course that leaves skeptics or anti-science trolls to come up with their own definitions. It's a game to them, I guess. It will become less of a game once the price of food and energy soars, and they will probably soar at the same time. Arizonans should have some shocking electric bills in the months ahead, and businesses will pass those onto the consumer.

I don’t believe it does guarantee that. You didn’t even quantify what significant means. The planet has been in an ice age for 3 million years with only brief warm intervals like today.