JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
Your Alt Right talking points go nowhere with your Alt Right facts.Yeah, so much hype over fractional changes in the temperatures, both pro and anti Anthropic Global Warming bullshit.
But it looks like there is data on a coming solar minimum the likes of which we have not seen in a century.
So what will the Warmistas blame the cold on? Trump manipulating NASA?
roflmao
Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lowerSo what will the Warmistas blame the cold on?
You do realize that notwithstanding the impact(s) of solar activity, global warming could well trigger an ice age.
The heart of the global warming issue isn't that the Earth is warming. The crux is the rate at which it is doing so -- as contrasted with the rate in years long gone whence humanity had little to no material impact on the rate at which the Earth cyclically warmed and cooled and what might be done to attenuate humanity's impact on the rate of warming.
Additionally, given the frequency of the Sun's going from solar maximum to minimum and back again -- by the linked article's content, about eight to ten years -- I'm not convinced the solar cycle plays a controlling role on the periodic fluctuations in Earth's progression from ice age to warm period and back again, which we clearly observe has historically spanned millennia for each "peak and valley."
You do realize that the argument for global warming causing an ice age is a little hard to swallow, right? If it's true the that GW is warming due to anthropogenic causes then it's difficult to believe that it could cause a mini-ice age. We've been increasing the amount of CO2 over the past century at a significant rate, which begs the question of why the GW isn't always going up if it's all artificial. Which in turn leads tot he conclusion by many that GW isn't entirely anthropogenic, that there are in fact natural causes such as solar activity. Which in turn leads to the question of how much is man-caused and how much isn't, AND what can we do about it.
So - when I read that MIT tells us the Paris Agreement would only reduce GW by two tenths of a % by 2100 and not even that if some countries don't hit their commitments, and then I find out the US would have to pay quit a bit of our money to other countries for that barely negligible result, well it sorta becomes a very hard sell.