Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[Kilroy2]

Yes, at the "beginning", I'm talking the last 400,000 years.

Well it is believed that early years was just a shower of meteors and comets. Just 65 millions years ago some believe that the Yucan peninsular was struck and it wipe out most life which include the dinosaurs. So it can still be said that the earth was in a developmental stage that would allow the smartest inhabitants to survive and dominate. If the meteors did not wipe out the dinosaurs then where would we be at now. So the earth may have been older but was it was hide and seek by the species with the biggest brain in relation to it overall size for many centuries.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sources as the link you provide really just states that the Sun is not the cause of global warming but mans activities is.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

that is what your source states and the title

Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations​

Prove the sun is not responsible... I can prove it is and have done so. Your links are hyperbole without basis is science.

GHG's do not have the power to do anything in our water driven atmosphere. They are being dampend by it and thus can not drive it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Really you want to make a point with only the number one. Sorry one is a lonely number. So lets be real about it.


The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2019, the United States emitted 5,130 million metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 33,621.5 million metric tons.

Total Emissions in 2020 = 5,981 Million Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to independent rounding.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.

www.epa.gov

If all warming was due to CO2 increase it is still below what we expected in log of the gas. This means its effects are being dampened. This also means there is no positive feedback loop.

Now, when we remove other natural variational factors, we find out that potential warming is much less than the total warming we have seen to date. SO much lower that CO2 and other GHG's cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well it is believed that early years was just a shower of meteors and comets. Just 65 millions years ago some believe that the Yucan peninsular was struck and it wipe out most life which include the dinosaurs. So it can still be said that the earth was in a developmental stage that would allow the smartest inhabitants to survive and dominate. If the meteors did not wipe out the dinosaurs then where would we be at now. So the earth may have been older but was it was hide and seek by the species with the biggest brain in relation to it overall size for many centuries.

I'm still talking 400,000 years ago. You keep talking millions and billions of years ago, I have no idea why.

 

[EMH]

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask, genius. The question I asked, but you misread, was:


Do YOU see the term Global Warming in that sentence? Do YOU know the difference? Are YOU that stupid?

LOL!!!


Global Warming - a theory that states that Co2 in the atmosphere is 100% responsible for Earth temperature and climate, and has been 100% refuted for the duration of the theory by THE DATA

Climate Change - the general subject of what does cause Earth climate change, specifically the positioning of land near the poles via tectonic plate movement. When the Global Warming fraud gets busted over and over, it hides under "Climate Change is real" talking point, which should get the response...


YES, Climate Change is real, but Co2 has NOTHING to do with it

 

[EMH]

Prove the sun is not responsible... I can prove it is and have done so

So the Sun melted North America and froze Greenland at the same time?

Well, Faux "News" says so....


Did 600F burning jet fuel cause a river of 2200F molten steel to pour out of the South Tower???

 

[ReinyDays]

Prove the sun is not responsible...

From SB/;,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""">........................./////////////////////////

As we can see ... 5 month old kittens HATE math ... I'm not going to try and take back my pencil ...

The Sun is constant ... we aren't measuring surface temperatures accurate enough to show any changes to the Sun's output ... thus the SOLAR CONSTANT stands at 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 ... accept no other value ...

The bigger issue is an accurate value for albedo ... using 0.3 (±0.05) gives us ±10ºC on the surface ... we're forced to assume 0.30 (±0.005) to match the accuracy we do have, NOAA's standard is ±1ºC ... that's one hell of an assumption to be silent about ... because a 1% difference in average albedo explains ALL the changes we've seen here on the surface ...

The spay and neuter clinic explained statistical weighting to the kittens ... and now kittens are trying to murder me ...

 

[ReinyDays]

So the Sun melted North America and froze Greenland at the same time?

Well, Faux "News" says so....


Did 600F burning jet fuel cause a river of 2200F molten steel to pour out of the South Tower???

Except for continentiality ... temperatures are the same for the same latitude ... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... continentiality just means "further from the nearest ocean" ... I know it's cold in Maine, but nothing like the cold in North Dakota ... the Atlantic Ocean moderates the temperatures in Maine, North Dakota is too far away ...

Steel burns ... ask any Navy man ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The experts I refer to have PhDs in the hard sciences and are renowned in their fields.

Like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An "ice age" is a continent specific event, and it starts when the land gets to within 600 miles of a pole, which then causes the following - the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt in the "summer" which then causes it to stack. An "ice age" like North America ends when the tectonic plate moves away from the pole - Europe too now fits that description...

How close was Chicago to a pole when there was a mile of ice piled on top of it?
How close was Chicago to a pole when the mile of ice piled on top of it melted?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?

Scientific consensus isn't reached only through whipping up votes. It's actually born out of an overwhelming agreement between scientists of varying fields of study regarding a particular issue at hand.

futurism.com

Republicans in denial is so funny.

What's the scientific consensus on how many nuclear reactors we should build to stop global warming?

 

[Kilroy2]

What's the scientific consensus on how many nuclear reactors we should build to stop global warming?

Sorry nuclear reactors operations do not contribute to global warming and in fact they are an alternative to burning fossil fuel.

But if you have a source please post it.

 

[EMH]

How close was Chicago to a pole when there was a mile of ice piled on top of it?
How close was Chicago to a pole when the mile of ice piled on top of it melted?

Your question is really... given land extending way outside of the polar circle, how far will a continent specific ice age push that ice before it melts.

The North American Ice Age answers that, as does Greenland.

Here we have the North American Ice Age 1 million years ago, with Chicago and the rest of NA 20-50 further NE than today, not very far. As long as continuous land, including minor "below sea level" bumps which 2 mile high glaciers push out, the evidence is that the ice will go <>500 miles past the polar circle. The NAIA was 30-40 million years old at this point. The longer the glacier manufacturing system is on (land within 600 miles of a pole) the further outside the polar circle the glaciers will push.

Greenland of course "ran out of land" but filled in way past the polar circle...

 

[EMH]

There is a "scientific consensus" amongst those Co2 fudgebakers bilking the taxpayer that we should believe their bullshit and keep funding them to lie to us...

 

[Kilroy2]

I'm still talking 400,000 years ago. You keep talking millions and billions of years ago, I have no idea why.

Because it is history and is relevant to the development of the Earth ecosystem. Ignoring past events is just cherry picking your argument. The origins of how the solar system was created is relevant to your argument. It is like reading the last chapter of a book. You can do it but you are missing out on things.

Still significant event occurred within the 400,000 year limit

Four hundred thousand years ago, extreme environmental changes rocked the East African Rift Valley. Fresh water periodically dried up, and vast grasslands faded away—taking with them the large grazing animals hunted by early humans. But ecological instability didn’t drive people out of the region or into extinction. Instead, it sparked them to adapt with major leaps forward in their behavior and culture. Early humans developed more sophisticated stone tools and weapons, expanded trade networks, and even evidenced the growth of symbolic communication.

To Adapt to a Changing Environment 400,000 Years Ago, Early Humans Developed New Tools and Behaviors



2014 comet exploded over Russia.

In 1908 an approximately 30-meter-diameter asteroid or comet entered the atmosphere and exploded above ground in Tunguska, Russia. The explosion knocked down approximately 80 million trees over an area of 2,150 square kilometers (830 square miles). This explosion has been estimated at 1,000 times more powerful than the explosion of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sorry nuclear reactors operations do not contribute to global warming and in fact they are an alternative to burning fossil fuel.

But if you have a source please post it.

Holy Shit !!! ... do you have idea how much cement goes into a nuclear power plant ??? ... cement is carbon-intensive ... both in it's manufacture and it's placement ...

We can only say the electricity produced is "carbon neutral" ... there's a HUGE carbon-price to pay upfront ... same with hydro ... severe conservation is the only way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere ...

Carbon turns into seaweed ... good luck Florida ...

 

[Crick]

Holy Shit !!! ... do you have idea how much cement goes into a nuclear power plant ??? ... cement is carbon-intensive ... both in it's manufacture and it's placement ...

We can only say the electricity produced is "carbon neutral" ... there's a HUGE carbon-price to pay upfront ... same with hydro ... severe conservation is the only way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere ...

Carbon turns into seaweed ... good luck Florida ...

This penchant you folks have to argue that enormous amount of CO2 will be produced by the creation of this or that is absolutely fucking ridiculous. The amount of CO2 that will NOT be produced by building a nuke plant or a field of windmills or solar panels is several orders of magnitude greater than the amount produced during their construction. That has been demonstrated to you repeatedly, but, as so frequently happens, you tend to ignore those inconvenient facts.

 

[jc456]

If you know so much about the history of climate change tell is when CO2 changed this fast before.

You got the charts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry nuclear reactors operations do not contribute to global warming and in fact they are an alternative to burning fossil fuel.

But if you have a source please post it.

Sorry nuclear reactors operations do not contribute to global warming

Exactly!

To save the planet, what is the consensus on the number of new reactors we should build?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your question is really... given land extending way outside of the polar circle, how far will a continent specific ice age push that ice before it melts.

The North American Ice Age answers that, as does Greenland.

Here we have the North American Ice Age 1 million years ago, with Chicago and the rest of NA 20-50 further NE than today, not very far. As long as continuous land, including minor "below sea level" bumps which 2 mile high glaciers push out, the evidence is that the ice will go <>500 miles past the polar circle. The NAIA was 30-40 million years old at this point. The longer the glacier manufacturing system is on (land within 600 miles of a pole) the further outside the polar circle the glaciers will push.

Greenland of course "ran out of land" but filled in way past the polar circle...

Your question is really... given land extending way outside of the polar circle, how far will a continent specific ice age push that ice before it melts.

That's not the question at all.

An "ice age" is a continent specific event, and it starts when the land gets to within 600 miles of a pole,

Is there land currently within 600 miles of the North Pole?
Was it there when the last glacial period began?
Is it still there?