Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

[ding]

Neither of us are climate scientists. Neither of us are conducting research. I have repeatedly stated that I accept the conclusions of the IPCC and that I don't take direction from fools like you. You have repeatedly claimed that they are making a mistake and overstating the effect of feedbacks. If you want my numbers, look to see what the IPCC says. Argue with the IPCC.

Why can't you quote the numbers from the report? Is it because you can't find them?

 

[Crick]

Another whopper your unscientific post makes. You cut off the causal chain as if all the things Co2 does affect do not have an effect

Again, Cllimate Change is horseshit, I agree
But even the Co2 folks disagree with you. Patrick Moore finds a very positive impact of Co2 worldwide. One great effect is the recovery of the sahara , a now -green area equal to the combined size of Germany and France

Recently, CO2 Science brought up a paper in Nature Communications.

Using satellite images, Venter et al. 2018 found an eight percent increase in woody vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa over the last three decades, underscoring the global “greening trend.”

That’s an area that’s almost as big as Germany and France combined! This is profound.

In other words, it’s well over 10,000 Manhattans!

If the added green area were effectively used for agriculture, it could produce enough food to feed the African continent

An 8% increase in woody vegetation is not the difference between Saharan sand dunes and arable farmland.

 

[EMH]

the sun's changing (getting warmer)

THAT is Faux "News" BULLSHIT put out by the Co2 FRAUD for MORON "skeptics" to parrot while accepting the warmers' FUDGE as "real."

The Sun's output "changes" are equivalent to the rise of the ocean when you drop a tear into it...

 

[EMH]

If only you didn't speak so unscientifically. One cause has many effects, and one effect has many causes.
Don't say :

Co2 does nothing​

Don't end with: All about land near the poles

Climate change is crap but that way of speaking is NOT scientific

LOL!!!

1. you cannot refute one word of what I've posted
2. the climate does change, Jurassic was warmer and wetter
3. if you cannot explain why Jurassic was warmer and wetter, you are the one here who is unscientific

 

[expat_panama]

...the sun's changing (getting warmer) and in about a billion years the earth will be so hot all the water (oceans, lakes, etc.) will boil off...

THAT is Faux "News" BULLSHIT put out by the Co2 FRAUD for MORON "skeptics" to parrot while accepting the warmers' FUDGE as "real."

The Sun's output "changes" are equivalent to the rise of the ocean when you drop a tear into it...

There's a lot of sources for this:

• After about a billion years the sun will become hot enough to boil our oceans.
• In around a billion years, the sun will become hot enough to boil all the oceans on Earth.
• The Sun Will Boil Earth's Oceans In A Billion Years...
• The Sun is slowly heating up and in half a billion years will boil away Earth's oceans...

(more here)

Reality has to be accepted on it's own terms.

 

[EMH]

There's a lot of sources for this:

• After about a billion years the sun will become hot enough to boil our oceans.
• In around a billion years, the sun will become hot enough to boil all the oceans on Earth.
• The Sun Will Boil Earth's Oceans In A Billion Years...
• The Sun is slowly heating up and in half a billion years will boil away Earth's oceans...

(more here)

Reality has to be accepted on it's own terms.

That the Sun is expected to experience what Antares is already experiencing is not contested. That is because the fusion reaction changes as all H becomes Helium....

That's not going on now. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that the Sun's output fluctuations are anything but noise. The "studies" claiming the Sun is increasing its output are PUT OUT BY THE CO2 FRAUD to get MORONS to accept their FUDGE as real temp data...


the REAL TEMP DATA

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO NET ICE MELT ONGING
NO BREAKOUT IN CANES
NO OCEAN RISE

Nothing except Urban Heat Island effect and FUDGE....

 

[Crick]

That the Sun is expected to experience what Antares is already experiencing is not contested. That is because the fusion reaction changes as all H becomes Helium....

That's not going on now. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that the Sun's output fluctuations are anything but noise. The "studies" claiming the Sun is increasing its output are PUT OUT BY THE CO2 FRAUD to get MORONS to accept their FUDGE as real temp data...


the REAL TEMP DATA

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO NET ICE MELT ONGING
NO BREAKOUT IN CANES
NO OCEAN RISE

Nothing except Urban Heat Island effect and FUDGE....

What the sun is doing is predicted by standard stellar evolution theories.

Spring 2018 ASTR 1200-001: Stellar Evolution

jila.colorado.edu

 

[EMH]

What the sun is doing is predicted by standard stellar evolution theories.

View attachment 877718

Spring 2018 ASTR 1200-001: Stellar Evolution

jila.colorado.edu

Where that graph says "now" is much more flat line that what your graph shows. IT should be flat line until something changes, namely the fusion of He not H, apparently the "leaves man sequence."

There is no evidence at all that the Sun's output reaching Earth has changed at all for 10s of millions of years.


The "Solar Cycle" theory is just part of the Co2 FRAUD, to get Faux "News" morons to parrot a "skeptic's" take that forces THE MORON TO KEEP ACCEPTING FUDGE AS DATA....

 

[Crick]

Where that graph says "now" is much more flat line that what your graph shows.

Are you actually referring to graphs like this?

IT should be flat line until something changes, namely the fusion of He not H, apparently the "leaves man sequence."

Are you unfamiliar with the sun't 11 year sunspot cycle?

There is no evidence at all that the Sun's output reaching Earth has changed at all for 10s of millions of years.

The data in the graph above is taken from records left in proxy compounds. When you say "there is no evidence" you are either being exceptionally ignorant or willfully lying.

The "Solar Cycle" theory is just part of the Co2 FRAUD, to get Faux "News" morons to parrot a "skeptic's" take that forces THE MORON TO KEEP ACCEPTING FUDGE AS DATA....

The solar cycle was clearly identified in 1843 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe.

Do you EVER try to look things up before opening your ignorant yap?

 

[EMH]

Schwabe

Must be related to Klaus....

left in proxy compounds

Always there is "evidence" that really isn't evidence. McBullshit was quickly busted here for "dating" outside wood at 30k years old... problem, wood decomposes in 100 years.... oooppps...

clearly identified in 1843

These are always EASY....

WHAT INSTRUMENTS were used to obtain that data???

LOL!!!


The Co2 FRAUD's claims about ancient science are always outed as bullshit because THERE WERE NO INSTRUMENTS AT THE TIME TO GATHER SUCH DATA....




Your side spend $$$$ putting together "solar cycle." In the end, solar cycle is busted the same way the Co2 FRAUD is, by the real data, specifically that


GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED


How did Co2 do that? It didn't
How did SUN do that? IT didn't

 

[Crick]

Must be related to Klaus....

Samuel Heinrich Schwabe discovered the sun's 11 year sunspot cycle. That is the source of the 11-year periodic oscillations you see in this and every other graph of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)

Always there is "evidence" that really isn't evidence. McBullshit was quickly busted here for "dating" outside wood at 30k years old... problem, wood decomposes in 100 years.... oooppps...

Who is "McBullshit"? I thought you used that childish nickname for Milankovitch but that wouldn't apply here. So what the fuck are you talking about. This doesn't seem to refer to anything in the post of mine to which you were responding.

These are always EASY....

Everything is easy for someone who ignores all the rules of science, logic, critical reasoning and telling the truth.

WHAT INSTRUMENTS were used to obtain that data???

It's proxy data. Do you not understand what proxy is?

The Co2 FRAUD's claims about ancient science are always outed as bullshit because THERE WERE NO INSTRUMENTS AT THE TIME TO GATHER SUCH DATA....

What ancient science? You really don't seem to understand what proxy data is. What the fuck are you doing in this conversation? Why don't you go over to little Jimmy's house and see if he wants to play Candy Land or build a fort with the funiture.

Your side spend $$$$ putting together "solar cycle." In the end, solar cycle is busted the same way the Co2 FRAUD is, by the real data, specifically that
GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED
How did Co2 do that? It didn't
How did SUN do that? IT didn't

You are either the most ignorant fuck on the entire internet or you're a troll.

 

[EMH]

Samuel Heinrich Schwabe discovered the sun's 11 year sunspot cycle. That is the source of the 11-year periodic oscillations you see in this and every other graph of Total Solar Irradiance (

So, because of periodic sun spots, the Sun's output flickers 0.0003%

wow...

Who is "McBullshit"? I thought you used that childish nickname for Milankovitch but that wouldn't apply her

Already completely BUSTED as FRAUD on BOTH POLES here...

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

And indeed, whether it is claiming 2.5 mile thick glacier on Chicago originated in Northern Canada 70k years earlier, or that the fault in the center of the Atlantic stopped moving south of South America, when both claims are laughably wrong, is EXACTLY WHY nothing you cite should be trusted because it is ALL TAXPAYER FUNDED FUDGED FRAUD.

 

[Crick]

So, because of periodic sun spots, the Sun's output flickers 0.0003%

wow...

Wow. An almost correct observation although the flicker is more like 0.1%

Already completely BUSTED as FRAUD on BOTH POLES here...

A post back you claimed that there was no sunspot cycle and now you seem to be admitting that there is. I hope you're not making the mistake of thinking small equals none.

[URL unfurl="false"https://www.usmessageboard.com/thre...mass-antarctica-70-million-years-ago.1054525/[/URL]

https://www.usmessageboard.com/thre...cago-in-the-past-20k-5-million-years.1038909/

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't even accept your posts as evidence that you exist.

And indeed, whether it is claiming 2.5 mile thick glacier on Chicago originated in Northern Canada 70k years earlier, or that the fault in the center of the Atlantic stopped moving south of South America, when both claims are laughably wrong, is EXACTLY WHY nothing you cite should be trusted because it is ALL TAXPAYER FUNDED FUDGED FRAUD.

None of that has anything to do with the topic under discussion.

Do you understand what a proxy is and how proxies can be used to detect and measure past sunspot activities?

 

[EMH]

Wow. An almost correct observation although the flicker is more like 0.1%

LOL!!!!

Which does WHAT to Earth climate???

 

[Crick]

LOL!!!!

Which does WHAT to Earth climate???

Very little. I never said it did. I was simply responding to your astounding claim that there was no solar cycle, that it was all just another fraud.

 

[EMH]

Very little. I never said it did. I was simply responding to your astounding claim that there was no solar cycle, that it was all just another fraud.

The claim isn't that there is NO solar cycle, the claim is that the SUN is a CONSTANT for the issue of Earth climate change.

Indeed, even an 11 year cycle is a CONSTANT if it keeps happening every 11 years.... doing all of 0.1% of output fluctuation in the process....

 

[Crick]

The claim isn't that there is NO solar cycle, the claim is that the SUN is a CONSTANT for the issue of Earth climate change.

Indeed, even an 11 year cycle is a CONSTANT if it keeps happening every 11 years.... doing all of 0.1% of output fluctuation in the process....

Let's try to stay honest. You said:

These are always EASY....
WHAT INSTRUMENTS were used to obtain that data???
LOL!!!
The Co2 FRAUD's claims about ancient science are always outed as bullshit because THERE WERE NO INSTRUMENTS AT THE TIME TO GATHER SUCH DATA....
Your side spend $$$$ putting together "solar cycle." In the end, solar cycle is busted the same way the Co2 FRAUD is, by the real data, specifically that
GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED
How did Co2 do that? It didn't
How did SUN do that? IT didn't

This text indicates that you are completely unaware of the use of proxies and that you believe the solar cycle is a fraud. And it would take an 8th grade education to know that a cycling value is not a constant. You're not doing very well.

I would love to have a name to call you by. Saying "Hey, EMH, how's your day so far" just doesn't feel right. So I'm gonna start calling you Eb, like Eb Dawson in Green Acres. I guess that's short for Ebenezer. We had a cat once we named Ebenezer but it was actually Ebony Sir as he was male and black. Of course he just became Bennie. Good cat. Gone now. Still, a good cat.

 

[EMH]

Let's try to stay honest. You said:

This text indicates that you are completely unaware of the use of proxies and that you believe the solar cycle is a fraud. And it would take an 8th grade education to know that a cycling value is not a constant. You're not doing very well.

I would love to have a name to call you by. Saying "Hey, EMH, how's your day so far" just doesn't feel right. So I'm gonna start calling you Eb, like Eb Dawson in Green Acres. I guess that's short for Ebenezer. We had a cat once we named Ebenezer but it was actually Ebony Sir as he was male and black. Of course he just became Bennie. Good cat. Gone now. Still, a good cat.

There is an 11 year sunspot issue.

Then there is the "solar cycle" theory of Earth climate change, that the dominant variable that controls Earth climate change is the Sun. That is complete BS funded by and put out by the Co2 FRAUD for Faux "News" MORONS to parrot.... and they parrot it.

 

[Crick]

There is an 11 year sunspot issue.

Issue? What issue?

Then there is the "solar cycle" theory of Earth climate change, that the dominant variable that controls Earth climate change is the Sun. That is complete BS funded by and put out by the Co2 FRAUD for Faux "News" MORONS to parrot.... and they parrot it.

I have heard numerous AGW deniers attempt to claim the sun must be responsible for global warming, but I do not recall any of them every mentioning a "solar cycle". I just did a Google search on "solar cycle, climate change". I found several articles explaining why the sun was not responsible for global warming and that failed attempts had been made to link the 11-year sunspot cycle to global warming but in three pages of search results I found nothing talking about any other "solar cycle". I agree with you that the sun is not the cause of global warming since 1850, but I have to insist that you claimed there was no 11-year sunspot cycle and are now attempting to walk that back. Try this. Say "sorry, I got that wrong".

 

[EMH]

Issue? What issue?

An "issue" that is immaterial to the subject of Earth climate change. Minor solar fluctuations did not cause ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska... and neither did Co2.

See OP for real answer...