For the last Time, "skeptics," the SUN is NOT the cause of climate change, and "solar cycle" was put out by the fraud

[EMH]

Can't refute him if he never presents his data ... I called, the Canadian Arctic is still ice-bound ... EHM is using Dallas, Texas' weather ...

You can lie all you want. And you and Dag do lie, and crick and abu lie...

All is documented.

Co2 not warming atmosphere
No breakout in canes
Greenland froze while North america thawed - documented 500 times already here, easily done again
Age of Antarctica's 2.5 mile thick glaciers vs. McBullshit
Evidence of Norfolk naval base sinking - photos of a 2017 storm surge
Busted lying about antarctic ice growth by NASA and British Court 2007


SPECIFY... and again and again it will be posted here as it already is over and over...

 

[EMH]

Of course the sun is the engine that drives climate and climate change

EMH has asked

OVER AND OVER AND OVER for one of the idiots pushing "The Sun is responsible for climate CHANGE" to IDENTIFY one single thing the SUN actually changes.

Still waiting...

Jeopardy! music still playing


WHAT DOES THE SUN CHANGE???

 

[EMH]

Was Greenland in the middle of the Atlantic back then?

You can see where Greenland has been moving, NW, thanks to the fault at the center bottom of the Atlantic.

That is why Greenland when into ice age while Europe continues to melt....

That motion also moved Antarctica from South Africa to South Pole. Rewind that and you get Pangea 125 million years ago.

 

[EMH]

There is no climate science related institute in the world that goes along with bullshit.

We went to COURT over your side's BULLSHIT and this was the result...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[Dagosa]

We went to COURT over your side's BULLSHIT and this was the result...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

That’s it ? I thought you were actually going to find a climate science institute. Al Gore is NASA, MIT, Cal Tech and every other climate science institute ? You lost.

 

[Dagosa]

We went to COURT over your side's BULLSHIT and this was the result...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Newsbuster ? Are you shitting me ? A check out counter tabloid…Amizing. For idiots only. They aren’t a climate science research institute. Your intellect dropped to goldfish level. Or worse…..Trump level.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why does the air cool as it passes over Antarctica??

Less sunshine ... stoopid ...

 

[jc456]

View attachment 789439

Nice selfie of yourself

 

[jc456]

EMH has asked

OVER AND OVER AND OVER for one of the idiots pushing "The Sun is responsible for climate CHANGE" to IDENTIFY one single thing the SUN actually changes.

Still waiting...

Jeopardy! music still playing


WHAT DOES THE SUN CHANGE???

Thought you said man was?

 

[jc456]

Less sunshine ... stoopid ...

I truly wonder how many of the peeps In here know earth tilts back and forth twice a year

 

[jc456]

That’s it ? I thought you were actually going to find a climate science institute. Al Gore is NASA, MIT, Cal Tech and every other climate science institute ? You lost.

He uses their inaccurate data.

It’s why none of you warmers can name a city where there’s evidence. Not even the poles agree.

It’s why you all can’t debate this topic, you got nothing

 

[multivita-man]

Of course the sun is the engine that drives climate and climate change. But it’s man and the use of the suns derived fossil fuel energy sources that changed the rate, thus producing AGW. Really, you going to keep pretending you’re smarter then every climate science related institute in the entire world ?

Not really sure I'd say that the sun drives climate and climate change. Obviously we need solar radiation to have heat, but it's the biosphere that changes and thus drives climatic changes as we commonly understand them.

Historically, based on our understanding of the paleo-record, changes in the biosphere have had some sort of natural explanation/causation.

It is believed that the earth got its first real doses of widespread oxygen after the development of photosynthetic bacteria, which produced oxygen as a waste product, oxidizing the oceans and then pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. That in turn is believed to have caused significant cooling over time. And then the earth warmed up once again when volcanic activity pumped more carbon into the atmosphere.

Ever since multi-cellular life appeared on the planet about 600-700 million years ago, our climate has naturally gone back and forth between periods of warming due to naturally-explained release of greenhouse gases (mainly through volcanic activity and other phenomena), and then cooling when those forces subside and oxygen returns in greater proportion (probably due to increased plant life - photosynthetic processes at work again).

Climate-warming skeptics point out the fact that the earth warms and cools naturally. Yes, it does, but now human industrial activity is basically recreating artificially what past climate change forces produced naturally. Taking massive amounts of carbon out of the ground and lighting it on fire on the scale that we're doing it is basically recreating the conditions of the End-Permian period (252 mya)...which is some pretty horrifying shit. 90% of species...gone.

Something to chew on. If we go back and look at modern observed atmospheric carbon levels, we can see that atmospheric carbon concentration is accelerating. From 1959 - 1971, carbon levels increase by 25 ppm - 25 ppm in 22 years. It increased by another 25 ppm by 1987 - that's 16 years. And it took only 13 years and then 10 years and then 6 years for subsequent 25 ppm increases.

The only times this trend was interrupted even slightly was when we had major economic disruptions - the Great Recession and the COVID recession. And then we quickly resumed economic production and pumping carbon into the atmosphere, usually making up for the lost amounts the previous years. We've had international agreement after international agreement, climate pledge after climate pledge, and nothing changes.

Our atmospheric carbon is at around 425 ppm - it was under 300 ppm in the 1950s and 60s. At this rate, we're about to be adding 25 ppm of carbon every 1-2 years and in ten years, we could be adding 30-50 ppm of carbon to the atmosphere each 1-2 years. With it, will be an inevitable rise in heat, and it's going to make a lot of places barely livable and almost certainly poorly suited for agriculture. And if that's not bad enough, we're on pace to have 9 billion people in another decade, and 10 billion in the decade that follows.

We're headed for a disaster of epic proportions.

 

[Dagosa]

He uses their inaccurate data.

It’s why none of you warmers can name a city where there’s evidence. Not even the poles agree.

It’s why you all can’t debate this topic, you got nothing

Wrong. You have only a conservative rag as “ BS evidence ”:
There are 30k institutes of higher learning, our military and dozs. of science research facilities. All the major related corporations including Exxon and the official position of every major religion.. says you are FOS

Bottom line, you’re either ignorant or just plain dumb.

 

[Dagosa]

Not really sure I'd say that the sun drives climate and climate change. Obviously we need solar radiation to have heat, but it's the biosphere that changes and thus drives climatic changes as we commonly understand them.

Historically, based on our understanding of the paleo-record, changes in the biosphere have had some sort of natural explanation/causation.

It is believed that the earth got its first real doses of widespread oxygen after the development of photosynthetic bacteria, which produced oxygen as a waste product, oxidizing the oceans and then pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. That in turn is believed to have caused significant cooling over time. And then the earth warmed up once again when volcanic activity pumped more carbon into the atmosphere.

Ever since multi-cellular life appeared on the planet about 600-700 million years ago, our climate has naturally gone back and forth between periods of warming due to naturally-explained release of greenhouse gases (mainly through volcanic activity and other phenomena), and then cooling when those forces subside and oxygen returns in greater proportion (probably due to increased plant life - photosynthetic processes at work again).

Climate-warming skeptics point out the fact that the earth warms and cools naturally. Yes, it does, but now human industrial activity is basically recreating artificially what past climate change forces produced naturally. Taking massive amounts of carbon out of the ground and lighting it on fire on the scale that we're doing it is basically recreating the conditions of the End-Permian period (252 mya)...which is some pretty horrifying shit. 90% of species...gone.

Something to chew on. If we go back and look at modern observed atmospheric carbon levels, we can see that atmospheric carbon concentration is accelerating. From 1959 - 1971, carbon levels increase by 25 ppm - 25 ppm in 22 years. It increased by another 25 ppm by 1987 - that's 16 years. And it took only 13 years and then 10 years and then 6 years for subsequent 25 ppm increases.

The only times this trend was interrupted even slightly was when we had major economic disruptions - the Great Recession and the COVID recession. And then we quickly resumed economic production and pumping carbon into the atmosphere, usually making up for the lost amounts the previous years. We've had international agreement after international agreement, climate pledge after climate pledge, and nothing changes.

Our atmospheric carbon is at around 425 ppm - it was under 300 ppm in the 1950s and 60s. At this rate, we're about to be adding 25 ppm of carbon every 1-2 years and in ten years, we could be adding 30-50 ppm of carbon to the atmosphere each 1-2 years. With it, will be an inevitable rise in heat, and it's going to make a lot of places barely livable and almost certainly poorly suited for agriculture. And if that's not bad enough, we're on pace to have 9 billion people in another decade, and 10 billion in the decade that follows.

We're headed for a disaster of epic proportions.

Babble.

 

[Dagosa]

I truly wonder how many of the peeps In here know earth tilts back and forth twice a year

Wow, something new. The earth is on a tilted axis. You sound like Trump.

 

[Dagosa]

He uses their inaccurate data.

It’s why none of you warmers can name a city where there’s evidence. Not even the poles agree.

It’s why you all can’t debate this topic, you got nothing

Of course you know where all the accurate data is. At the check out counter along with the other tabloids.

 

[Dagosa]

Not really sure I'd say that the sun drives climate and climate change. Obviously we need solar radiation to have heat, but it's the biosphere that changes and thus drives climatic changes as we commonly understand them.

Historically, based on our understanding of the paleo-record, changes in the biosphere have had some sort of natural explanation/causation.

It is believed that the earth got its first real doses of widespread oxygen after the development of photosynthetic bacteria, which produced oxygen as a waste product, oxidizing the oceans and then pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. That in turn is believed to have caused significant cooling over time. And then the earth warmed up once again when volcanic activity pumped more carbon into the atmosphere.

Ever since multi-cellular life appeared on the planet about 600-700 million years ago, our climate has naturally gone back and forth between periods of warming due to naturally-explained release of greenhouse gases (mainly through volcanic activity and other phenomena), and then cooling when those forces subside and oxygen returns in greater proportion (probably due to increased plant life - photosynthetic processes at work again).

Climate-warming skeptics point out the fact that the earth warms and cools naturally. Yes, it does, but now human industrial activity is basically recreating artificially what past climate change forces produced naturally. Taking massive amounts of carbon out of the ground and lighting it on fire on the scale that we're doing it is basically recreating the conditions of the End-Permian period (252 mya)...which is some pretty horrifying shit. 90% of species...gone.

Something to chew on. If we go back and look at modern observed atmospheric carbon levels, we can see that atmospheric carbon concentration is accelerating. From 1959 - 1971, carbon levels increase by 25 ppm - 25 ppm in 22 years. It increased by another 25 ppm by 1987 - that's 16 years. And it took only 13 years and then 10 years and then 6 years for subsequent 25 ppm increases.

The only times this trend was interrupted even slightly was when we had major economic disruptions - the Great Recession and the COVID recession. And then we quickly resumed economic production and pumping carbon into the atmosphere, usually making up for the lost amounts the previous years. We've had international agreement after international agreement, climate pledge after climate pledge, and nothing changes.

Our atmospheric carbon is at around 425 ppm - it was under 300 ppm in the 1950s and 60s. At this rate, we're about to be adding 25 ppm of carbon every 1-2 years and in ten years, we could be adding 30-50 ppm of carbon to the atmosphere each 1-2 years. With it, will be an inevitable rise in heat, and it's going to make a lot of places barely livable and almost certainly poorly suited for agriculture. And if that's not bad enough, we're on pace to have 9 billion people in another decade, and 10 billion in the decade that follows.

We're headed for a disaster of epic proportions.

That the climate changes is no great revelation. That the sun is literally the primary source of all energy here in earth, is absolute in its affect on our climate . That it has begun to change more rapidly from the industrial revolution on is an indication of man’s intervention into the mix,

 

[Dagosa]

You can lie all you want. And you and Dag do lie, and crick and abu lie...

All is documented.

Co2 not warming atmosphere
No breakout in canes
Greenland froze while North america thawed - documented 500 times already here, easily done again
Age of Antarctica's 2.5 mile thick glaciers vs. McBullshit
Evidence of Norfolk naval base sinking - photos of a 2017 storm surge
Busted lying about antarctic ice growth by NASA and British Court 2007


SPECIFY... and again and again it will be posted here as it already is over and over...

You’re hilarious. I use references from climate science research while you make up shit and use conservative check out counter rags. You’re the bullshitter.

 

[multivita-man]

That the climate changes is no great revelation. That the sun is literally the primary source of all energy here in earth, is absolute in its affect on our climate .

What do you mean that the sun is absolute in its effect? Nobody with a brain is debating the fact that the sun delivers energy and heat, but so what? It's the atmosphere that gives life, and it's changes to the atmosphere (biosphere to be exact) that have been, and are now, the primary drivers of climate change.

 

[Dagosa]

What do you mean that the sun is absolute in its effect? Nobody with a brain is debating the fact that the sun delivers energy and heat, but so what? It's the atmosphere that gives life, and it's changes to the atmosphere (biosphere to be exact) that have been, and are now, the primary drivers of climate change.

Do you have a science background ?Energy from the sun, including gravity and radiation drives or affects EVERY other energy you can come up with. You’re thinking locally and short term. Do you know what climate change involves. For one thing, you need to understand evolution to understand what is happening.

The acceleration in the rate of Change is cause more by man’s use of fossil fuels and affects all species. Yet, all fossil fuels are derived from the energy of the sun. Nope, the primary driver of all life and our climate here on earth, IS THE SUN. Man has alterEd that rate of change to his own deterrent. The earth continues whatever we do to our environment because whatever we do will not affect the sun. We just make it harder for our own species to adapt.

AGW affects diseases, migration and continual wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. If people don’t get that, shame on them.