Global Warming My Arse

Difficult in terms of being precise, yes. But not difficult in measuring the effect the burning of massive amounts of carbon based fuels, in unprecedented amounts in human history, is having on climate trends.

 

A stars luminosity decreases as it ages. The sun was brighter, not dimmer, long in the past.

 

So......the vast majority of climate scientists say climate change is real based on the data they've collected, the evidence shows it's due to the human activity of burning fossil fuels, and we are now seeing the impact all around the globe by virtue of wild fires, drought, dying coral reefs, rising ocean temps, rising sea level, melting ice caps, more severe storms, but the Koch brothers want you to deny it all so they can keep making money......... so you do..........because you hate liberals.

 

Driving my car starts a forest fire in Kali?

 

NOt quite. YOu see many of those "advocates" realize the limits of their understanding so are perfectly comfortable with accepting the consensus conclusions of literally thousands of scientists.

YOu know like those people who don't know much about cancer but trust in their doctors to obtain treatment. Or do you think climatology is more difficult and "elusive" than oncology?

 

yep, what's to know? Not much it seems.

 

OP's just trollin'. Don't feed him.

 

Well, the science community thinks climatology is extremely difficult, mostly due to its extreme complexity and its integration with a multitude of other sciences.
How do you know what I know about climate science? ANS: you don't have a clue. But feel free to expound about any thing you don't know anything about.

 

Excuse me but the science of CO2 getting into the atmosphere and what it does global-wide and over the long term is extremely complex and difficult. The top scientists don't even know the how a doubling and doubling again and again of CO2 in the atmosphere works. They just make a terribly simple assumption -- not a whole lot more difficult than, "Oh, I think maybe.......... 8"

 

In the 70s they were preaching a new ice age which would suck way more then global warming.

 

What in God's name does this have to do with the aging of main sequence stars???? Try to stay at least partly focused.

 

And there was a concensus.

 

Accepting consensus conclusions is not the same thing as having knowledge about.

 

I think that globalist democrats have been planning these fires for a long time.


The kinds of Democrats who make threads celebrating the demise of the white majority talk about white people in private sounding like nazis talking about Jews. They cheer the whites being burned out of California.

 

There's like a show on discovery about the life-and-death of stars but the early Solar System was super hot.

You know why the planets are round?

 

Yes and so is rejecting consensus conclusions. go figger.

 

The fires in California have been brush fires fuels by drought and high winds. Even if one were to remove the brush, it would grow back next year. Maybe you can take up a rake and fix the problem, as old Orange Face claimed.

Funny how conservatives ignorantly blame California. If liberals were willing to play the stupid games conservatives play, we could be pointing out that it is conservative's failure to properly prepare, that causes the Hurricanes to clean out the red muck areas.

 

Wait.....you just described the president.

 

The atmosphere has more to do with surface temperatures than the exact amount of sunlight.

 

Are you suggesting that because its extremely complex and difficult that its consensus results are to be dismissed or discounted to the level of unconcern?

 

Nah...main sequence stars get brighter and emit more radiation as they age. You can use Gough's luminosity formula to calculate what the luminosity of the Sun was at different time.

The Sun was dimmer in the past that it is today.

 

More fake news.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Very few scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70's. In fact, nearly all news accounts at the time were based on the "human volcano" theory from a lone scientist named Reid Byrson. The scientific community at the time immediately and overwhelmingly rejected his theory even before the media started to erroneously report on it.

 

Consensus is not evidence itself. It is born out of the abundance of evidence.

 

Yeah, I mean there are a lot of factors in play. Solar luminosity is but one among many factors involved. Atmospheric composition is a huge factor. And as can be seen from the paleoclimate record global temperatures often move in a direction opposite that of solar output. That's proof positive that the Sun isn't the only driver of climate change and typically isn't even the most important factor when viewed on long million year spans.

 

It is complex. That doesn't mean scientists are completely clueless. Again, just because YOU don't understand how it works doesn't mean scientists are also clueless.

I highly recommend that you read the IPCC AR5 report for a very brief introduction to the science. It is culmination of 30,000 lines of evidence spanning nearly all disciplines science reviewed by 3,500 experts to produce a 5,000 page summary. I suspect many of your concerns and questions are already addressed in this report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

And be specific. What assumptions do you think scientists are making that you disagree with?

And do you have a better explanation for the warming troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere? If so then lay your cards on the table and show us what you have.