Question for believers in man made climate change

[Wyatt earp]

We can limit the rise if we act as a planet like in the Paris Agreement.

So, if America pays for everything and starts fucking over Americans, making all of our lives much more expensive, and China and India do nothing, all will be fine?

Wow, there is not end top your ignorance.

All Paris Accord signers listed their own goals.

The industrialized developed nations donate money to help the developing nations get the greenest generation facilities.

I know you dumbasses will whine & cry but we should admit that we are where we are with carbon concentrations due to these developed industrialized nations spewing all kinds of shit without any regard. And it's stupid to work to reduce ours if some country in Africa builds really dirty coal plants. So it only makes sense to help them build the greenest plants available.

43 countries have pledged money for that fund. \ Not just he US as you lied about.

Obama had pledged 3 billion. A lot less than your hero's stupid wall & do a hell of a lot more people here in the US & around the globe.

But hey, that's your children & grandchildren's future & we know how much you hate them.

So now country's like Zimbabwe has satellites in space ?

They rely on IPCC , NOAA, NASA...for their information the 2nd and 3rd world country's signed it for money..


Ya know just like worm scientist say man made climate change is for real to get government funds ..



.

This idea that climate scientists are all lying to get government money is such as crock of shit because you are too God damn stupid to get the deniers are funded by the fossil fuel industry that is depending on ignorant fucks like you to profit to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
'
trumpettes are even dumber than Trump.

Fossil fuel admits man has some part in climate change so does the Koch brothers so take your boogie men out of here


And fossil fuel is a big fucking donor to university's you idiot ...

 

[Thinker101]

There are no consequences. Only in your imagination. The only thing more CO2 in the atmosphere will do is help plants to produce more oxygen and for crops to produce more.

Carbon has zero effect on the temperature of Earth. It's just a half baked theory based on bad data in computer models. It cannot even be tested.

Really? I this a faith-based or an evidence-based assertion?

Well, considering plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugar and oxygen, I'm guessing you can answer your own question.

Photosynthesis is part of the Carbon Cycle and won't add any additional CO2 to the atmosphere.

Hmmm, don't recall even suggesting plants added CO2 to the atmosphere.

Then I misunderstood you, what was your point?

Evidently you do understand photosynthesis, which based on your question, I didn't realize.

 

[toobfreak]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I'm sorry but let me know when you idiots start believing in science.

Without that I'm wasting my time & you'll always be stupid.

More CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temps.

PROVEN FACT

The man quotes "science" while walking all over it. CO2 is a very WEAK, trace element GHG. More of it makes plants grow faster and better. More plants help cool the planet as well as produce more oxygen for people and all kinds of other secondary things. Much increased CO2 may very well have /some/ effect in stimulating slightly elevated temps, but when anyone makes such blanket, black and white statements as UnrealDave, that is a red marker right there that the man is not speaking solid science.

 

[bripat9643]

It was only 150 million years ago. The Sun was the same temperature as it is now.

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

1 Billion years ago the Sun was 35% cooler abouts.

You say just 1%? Hardly.

And 1% is 13watts.

Which is significant.

4 watts is what we are worried about. Get it?

So 1% solar irradiance shift would be DISASTROUS.

We aren't talking about 1 billion years ago. CO2 was at 4000 ppm 150 million years ago - 10 times what it is now. I also question your claim that it was 30% dimmer 1 billion years ago. That would mean the sun was dark 3.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.5 billion years old, so I find that difficult to believe. Life on earth is about 4 billion years old, and that requires liquid water. So the sun produced enough energy 4.0 billion years ago to keep the temperature of the earth about the same as it is now.

I can't find a chart of the irradiance of the sun over geologic time, so I am unable to verify your claims. Unless you provide such a chart, I can safely assume they are false

150 million year ago the Sun was about ~20%-15% cooler than it is today.

So what's your point?

250ppm CO2 = about 4watts/m^2.

20% of 1360watts/m^2 is 272watts/m^2 offset.

So that'd require 50x Co2 alone to offset the temperature lost by the Sun.

Not able to answer the discrepancy is why there is a "faint young sun paradox".

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Early in Earth's history, the Sun's output would have been only 70 percent as intense as it is during the modern epoch.
​

That means it was 30% less 4.0 billion years ago when life began and we therefor know that liquid water existed on the Earth's surface. To get the difference 150 million years ago, take 150/40000 = 3% less bright 150 million years ago than it is now.

 

[bripat9643]

Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

My understanding is that the "solar cycle" theory comes from the FRAUD itself, a "skeptic argument" for morons, easy for the climate "scientists" to refute...

Global Warming gets so much money from the taxpayer, it funds false "skeptic" arguments so it can "discredit skeptics..."

We aren't discussing shor term fluctuations in the brightness of the sun - changes over a few hundred years. We're talking about how the sun has gradually grown brighter over billions of years. This has happened, but the concentration of CO2 was 2000 ppm only 150 million years ago, which is ony a few minutes in terms of the lifetime of the earth and sun.

but...but....but/.. you just said it has always been the same? WTF buddy.

When did I say that?

 

[alang1216]

Increased CO2 levels have helped to increase the production of food and prevent starvation. It has also caused deserts to recede and the grean areas of the world to expand.

Where does this information come from? What I found says just the opposite: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

 

[CryptoNinja]

The Sun was not the same temperature as it was now, nuclear physics proves this.

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

1 Billion years ago the Sun was 35% cooler abouts.

You say just 1%? Hardly.

And 1% is 13watts.

Which is significant.

4 watts is what we are worried about. Get it?

So 1% solar irradiance shift would be DISASTROUS.

We aren't talking about 1 billion years ago. CO2 was at 4000 ppm 150 million years ago - 10 times what it is now. I also question your claim that it was 30% dimmer 1 billion years ago. That would mean the sun was dark 3.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.5 billion years old, so I find that difficult to believe. Life on earth is about 4 billion years old, and that requires liquid water. So the sun produced enough energy 4.0 billion years ago to keep the temperature of the earth about the same as it is now.

I can't find a chart of the irradiance of the sun over geologic time, so I am unable to verify your claims. Unless you provide such a chart, I can safely assume they are false

150 million year ago the Sun was about ~20%-15% cooler than it is today.

So what's your point?

250ppm CO2 = about 4watts/m^2.

20% of 1360watts/m^2 is 272watts/m^2 offset.

So that'd require 50x Co2 alone to offset the temperature lost by the Sun.

Not able to answer the discrepancy is why there is a "faint young sun paradox".

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Early in Earth's history, the Sun's output would have been only 70 percent as intense as it is during the modern epoch.
​

That means it was 30% less 4.0 billion years ago when life began and we therefor know that liquid water existed on the Earth's surface. To get the difference 150 million years ago, take 150/40000 = 3% less bright 150 million years ago than it is now.

OK, 3% of 1360 watts = 40.8 watts.

Which is 10x as much CO2 as 250ppm or 2,500ppm to OFFSET that much reduced Solar output.

GET IT?

You just proved me right.

 

[CryptoNinja]

Trump voters are such lying fuckers, just see the fact they quote proof in favor of Global Warming arguments and then claim they are the ones who are victorious.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You & your denier buddies claim CO2 is not a pollutant.

Why should we lie because your ilk is stupid?

Because we need CO2 to live..and you call us the stupid one?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

11 pages in and it is clear there is no difference between the deniers and the flat earth society


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[task0778]

Because we need CO2 to live..and you call us the stupid one?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Presumably you did not read the linked article, assuming you can read in the 1st place. It does indeed discuss a cooler period of time coming for the Earth sometime around 2020. You stupid partisan zealot. From the link:

Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.

The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
.
.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Because we need CO2 to live..and you call us the stupid one?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another one that doesn't know science or history , you don't know what a Maunder minimum is and what happened between 1645 and 1715?


A little ice age retardo..



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

11 pages in and it is clear there is no difference between the deniers and the flat earth society


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yup you are a flat earther, a fucking idiot when it comes to science and history.



.

 

[CryptoNinja]

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

1 Billion years ago the Sun was 35% cooler abouts.

You say just 1%? Hardly.

And 1% is 13watts.

Which is significant.

4 watts is what we are worried about. Get it?

So 1% solar irradiance shift would be DISASTROUS.

We aren't talking about 1 billion years ago. CO2 was at 4000 ppm 150 million years ago - 10 times what it is now. I also question your claim that it was 30% dimmer 1 billion years ago. That would mean the sun was dark 3.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.5 billion years old, so I find that difficult to believe. Life on earth is about 4 billion years old, and that requires liquid water. So the sun produced enough energy 4.0 billion years ago to keep the temperature of the earth about the same as it is now.

I can't find a chart of the irradiance of the sun over geologic time, so I am unable to verify your claims. Unless you provide such a chart, I can safely assume they are false

150 million year ago the Sun was about ~20%-15% cooler than it is today.

So what's your point?

250ppm CO2 = about 4watts/m^2.

20% of 1360watts/m^2 is 272watts/m^2 offset.

So that'd require 50x Co2 alone to offset the temperature lost by the Sun.

Not able to answer the discrepancy is why there is a "faint young sun paradox".

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Early in Earth's history, the Sun's output would have been only 70 percent as intense as it is during the modern epoch.
​

That means it was 30% less 4.0 billion years ago when life began and we therefor know that liquid water existed on the Earth's surface. To get the difference 150 million years ago, take 150/40000 = 3% less bright 150 million years ago than it is now.

OK, 3% of 1360 watts = 40.8 watts.

Which is 10x as much CO2 as 250ppm or 2,500ppm to OFFSET that much reduced Solar output.

GET IT?

You just proved me right.

Since you all skipped it

OK, 3% of 1360 watts = 40.8 watts.

Which is 10x as much CO2 as 250ppm or 2,500ppm to OFFSET that much reduced Solar output.

GET IT?

You just proved me right.

 

[jc456]

It’s like how as adults we know we have to wash our hands because of germs, but dumb little kids who don’t know any better think they don’t have to if they don’t look dirty.

“Psh humans don’t affect climate” = “psh microscopic imaginary bugs floating around? Yeah right.”

AGW is the lefts religion. Just fill in all the holes with "man" instead of "god."
Faith, it does a body good

Humans affecting climate, same as we affect everything, is not a stretch. Magical all powerful beings are a stretch.

Humans pollute, they do not change the climate of planet earth. the climate of our planet has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will be changing hundreds of millions of years after humans disappear from the earth. Human activity has never had anything to do with climate. Even if we had all out nuclear war, the impacts would be temporary in terms of the life of planet earth.

It’s so naive to think we can control climate. How many clouds have you made? Stop the earth rotation lately? Too fking funny

 

[jc456]

11 pages in and it is clear there is no difference between the deniers and the flat earth society


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yup you are a flat earther, a fucking idiot when it comes to science and history.



.

The dude thinks he controls the moon, sun and oceans. Not to mention the rotation of the planet and solstice. How about our magnetic infrastructure or gravity?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another one that doesn't know science or history , you don't know what a Maunder minimum is and what happened between 1645 and 1715?


A little ice age retardo..



.

The Maunder Minimum occurred in the middle of the “little ice age” and was not the cause of it. Solar minimums relate to solar activity, not the temperature of the sun itself.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Presumably you did not read the linked article, assuming you can read in the 1st place. It does indeed discuss a cooler period of time coming for the Earth sometime around 2020. You stupid partisan zealot. From the link:

Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.

The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
.
.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Solar minimums relate to surface activity such as sunspots, solar flares and the like.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another one that doesn't know science or history , you don't know what a Maunder minimum is and what happened between 1645 and 1715?


A little ice age retardo..



.

The Maunder Minimum occurred in the middle of the “little ice age” and was not the cause of it. Solar minimums relate to solar activity, not the temperature of the sun itself.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Quit embarrassing yourself anti science and history guy...

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another one that doesn't know science or history , you don't know what a Maunder minimum is and what happened between 1645 and 1715?


A little ice age retardo..



.

The Maunder Minimum occurred in the middle of the “little ice age” and was not the cause of it. Solar minimums relate to solar activity, not the temperature of the sun itself.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Still trying to post facts from your butt?


Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia



Maunder Minimum

The Maunder Minimum shown in a 400-year history of sunspot numbers
The Maunder Minimum, also known as the "prolonged sunspot minimum", is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspotsbecame exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

The term was introduced after John A. Eddy[1]published a landmark 1976 paper in Science.[2] Astronomers before Eddy had also named the period after the solar astronomers Annie Russell Maunder (1868–1947) and E. Walter Maunder (1851–1928), who studied how sunspot latitudes changed with time.[3]The period which the husband and wife team examined included the second half of the 17th century.

Two papers were published in Edward Maunder's name in 1890[4] and 1894,[5] and he cited earlier papers written by Gustav Spörer.[6] Because Annie Maunder had not received a university degree, due to restrictions at the time, her contribution was not then publicly recognized.[7]

Spörer noted that, during a 28-year period (1672–1699) within the Maunder Minimum, observations revealed fewer than 50 sunspots. This contrasts with the typical 40,000–50,000 sunspots seen in modern times.[8]

Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average European temperatures.