That Shiny Thing in the Sky and Global Temperatures

[Weatherman2020]

In the 1970’s the sun heated the earth’s atmosphere so unexpectedly it brought down Skylab. The heating of the atmosphere by the sun caused it to expand thus creating more friction on Skylab, thus slowing it, thus causing it to crash to the earth.

40 Years Ago: Skylab Reenters Earth’s Atmosphere - NASA

Skylab was America’s first space station and first crewed research laboratory in space. The complex consisted of four major components: the Orbital Workshop

www.nasa.gov

 

[DGS49]

So here we are in mid-November, and we in Pittsburgh are enjoying sunny skies and daytime highs in the low seventies. Still playing golf in shorts, and it's NOVEMBER!

Where do we sign up for some more of this Global Warming thing? I love it.

 

[JGalt]

I love global sunning.

 

[gipper]

It is hilarious that the warmers refuse to consider the enormous power of the sun to affect climate on earth, as well as geomagnetic conditions.

Should a large solar flare or a coronal mass ejection (CME) hit earth, we’ll all know the enormous power of the sun. With the weakening of earth’s magnetic field, a solar flare could cause a catastrophic event.

 

[mamooth]

It is hilarious that the warmers refuse to consider the enormous power of the sun to affect climate on earth, as well as geomagnetic conditions.

It's not hilarious that you'd deliberately tell such a lie. Wildly dishonest Stalinist propaganda like yours is a threat to democracy.

If you're not lying, show us your evidence that climate scientists never considered the sun. If you are lying, find an evasion.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It is hilarious that the warmers refuse to consider the enormous power of the sun to affect climate on earth, as well as geomagnetic conditions.

It's not hilarious that you'd deliberately tell such a lie. Wildly dishonest Stalinist propaganda like yours is a threat to democracy.

If you're not lying, show us your evidence that climate scientists never considered the sun. If you are lying, find an evasion.

2017.
Only 3 years ago.
They obviously missed the effects before then and as a result it brought down Skylab.

Sun's impact on climate change quantified for first time

For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun...

phys.org

 

[gipper]

It is hilarious that the warmers refuse to consider the enormous power of the sun to affect climate on earth, as well as geomagnetic conditions.

It's not hilarious that you'd deliberately tell such a lie. Wildly dishonest Stalinist propaganda like yours is a threat to democracy.

If you're not lying, show us your evidence that climate scientists never considered the sun. If you are lying, find an evasion.

it’s common knowledge no? Warmers blame man exclusively for global warming. They don’t consider the effects of the sun at all.

 

[mamooth]

it’s common knowledge no?

It's common knowledge that deniers tell that lie, yes. Everyone knows they're pathologically dishonest.

Warmers blame man exclusively for global warming. They don’t consider the effects of the sun at all.

I havce never encountered so much as a single human being here on the rational side who says such an insane thing. You're peddlign a deranged conspiracy fraud.

 

[mamooth]

2017.
Only 3 years ago.

So, your claim is that since solar effects brought down skylab a little early, nobody thinks the sun effects climate.

Your premise has zilch to do with your conclusion. This is stupid even by your usual standards.

 

[gipper]

it’s common knowledge no?

It's common knowledge that deniers tell that lie, yes. Everyone knows they're pathologically dishonest.

Warmers blame man exclusively for global warming. They don’t consider the effects of the sun at all.

I havce never encountered so much as a single human being here on the rational side who says such an insane thing. You're peddlign a deranged conspiracy fraud.

The truth is hard for the duped to accept.

 

[ReinyDays]

I can't believe you folks are forcing me to agree with Mammories ... shore do be spiteful y'all ...

The sun's output oscillates ... up and down ... and this does change year-to-year weather, and to a lesser extent the decade-by-decade weather ... and we all know weather changes quite dramatically ... the Solar Cycle is about 11 years long, so to average out this variable we try to focus on 100 year averages in climatology, and this is minimal ... this assumes every nine solar cycles will balance out and be removed from our temperature trends ... there's several other oscillations in the climate system of around this same period ...

There's a very good reason we call this the Solar Constant ... 1,360 W/m^2 ... you can bank on that number for the next ten million years ...

Flares and CMEs are matter, not energy ... these events rarely reach down to the lower atmosphere to effect weather ... so these are "what ifs" that are answered with "so what" ...

ETA: Originally, we believed meteors caused weather ... thus "Meteorology" ... there's been some push off and on to abandon this term in favor of "Atmospheric Science" ... only the weather girls on TV think the cosmos makes it rain ... what kind of girl is afraid to wear a green outfit? ...

 

[bloodhogs]

Wow! ok science lesson 101. Every scientist knows the sun warms the earth. The problem is when too much carbon is in the atmosphere the earth warms more. The sun also cycles with how much heat it throws at us. The reason for the confusion is it should not be called global warming although that is what is happening. It is an imbalance in the carbon cycle. The earth can process so much carbon. It is stored in trees and soil. It is even stored in fossil fuels. When too much is let out at one time the atmosphere is thickened. This causes a warming effect on the earth. The earth has gone through periods of hot and cold. We actually are in a cooler time historically. That is why the earth is able to hold all these two-legged locusts. If it gets much warmer crops will wilt and billions will starve. Look what that big yellow (white) ball does to plants when it is 90 degrees out. If that was more of the norm it should be easy to see how crops will die. No crops, no cow, not many homo-sapiens (humans). Yes, the earth will get warmer, we are just speeding it up by an exponential rate. Get you a book educate yourself on the carbon cycle and you can intelligently decide if 'global warming" is something we should be worried about. The choice is 100 years more of billions of humans or 1000.

 

[ReinyDays]

Wow! ok science lesson 101. Every scientist knows the sun warms the earth. The problem is when too much carbon is in the atmosphere the earth warms more. The sun also cycles with how much heat it throws at us. The reason for the confusion is it should not be called global warming although that is what is happening. It is an imbalance in the carbon cycle. The earth can process so much carbon. It is stored in trees and soil. It is even stored in fossil fuels. When too much is let out at one time the atmosphere is thickened. This causes a warming effect on the earth. The earth has gone through periods of hot and cold. We actually are in a cooler time historically. That is why the earth is able to hold all these two-legged locusts. If it gets much warmer crops will wilt and billions will starve. Look what that big yellow (white) ball does to plants when it is 90 degrees out. If that was more of the norm it should be easy to see how crops will die. No crops, no cow, not many homo-sapiens (humans). Yes, the earth will get warmer, we are just speeding it up by an exponential rate. Get you a book educate yourself on the carbon cycle and you can intelligently decide if 'global warming" is something we should be worried about. The choice is 100 years more of billions of humans or 1000.

Interesting ... though I don't know what you have against locusts ...

The mistake in your logic is that CO2 effects temperatures logarithmically ... the opposite of exponential ... the notion of a "runaway" greenhouse effect has been largely dismissed these days ...

We're expecting warmer and wetter conditions ... more water will mean more plant growth, not less ... this is true for a vast majority of our food plants; wheat, corn and rice all thrive with warmer temperatures ... longer growing seasons ... and more water ... everything we need to expand our own populations well past 30 billion ... if we don't kill each other first ...

 

[bloodhogs]

With lots of rain comes lots of erosion. The fertile land will be washed away. We have already paved over a portion of the fertile land to make way for the ever-expanding two-legged locusts. With 30 billion we would pave over way more fertile soil. Along with cutting down more trees that take in a lot of carbon dioxide. No one wants to talk about the true problem there are more people than the carbon cycle can stand.

 

[gipper]

With lots of rain comes lots of erosion. The fertile land will be washed away. We have already paved over a portion of the fertile land to make way for the ever-expanding two-legged locusts. With 30 billion we would pave over way more fertile soil. Along with cutting down more trees that take in a lot of carbon dioxide. No one wants to talk about the true problem there are more people than the carbon cycle can stand.

So it’s overpopulation that will cause a climate crisis. Is that right?

 

[gipper]

With lots of rain comes lots of erosion. The fertile land will be washed away. We have already paved over a portion of the fertile land to make way for the ever-expanding two-legged locusts. With 30 billion we would pave over way more fertile soil. Along with cutting down more trees that take in a lot of carbon dioxide. No one wants to talk about the true problem there are more people than the carbon cycle can stand.

When will we hit 30 billion?

 

[ReinyDays]

With lots of rain comes lots of erosion. The fertile land will be washed away. We have already paved over a portion of the fertile land to make way for the ever-expanding two-legged locusts. With 30 billion we would pave over way more fertile soil. Along with cutting down more trees that take in a lot of carbon dioxide. No one wants to talk about the true problem there are more people than the carbon cycle can stand.

That's because folks who live in areas with internet connections already have their fertility rates down below replacement ... it's areas without internet connections where populations are greatly expanding, many of these places don't even have electric service ... kinda pointless bitching at people who already have taken steps to correct the problem ...

In order to reduce our carbon output, we must prohibit poor people from gaining ready access to energy ... heartless and cruel ...

 

[bloodhogs]

It is exacerbating the situation.

 

[ReinyDays]

When will we hit 30 billion?

We've quadrupled our population in the past 100 years ... it's dangerous to extrapolate this will happen again over the next 100 years ... so, with that caution firmly in mind, we say we will quadruple our population again over the next 100 years ... thus the 30 billion figure ...

Semi-evolved hairless rodents can't control their breeding ... so we should expect billions dead for no other reason than just overpopulation ... climate change is trivial in comparison ...

 

[Flash]

These stupid uneducated Moon Bats think you can alter the earth's climate by increasing taxes.

They also don't know that the earth's climate is regulated by the output of the sun in realtionship to the earth's orbit. They think it is regulated by SUVs.

They are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are ignorant of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics and the Constitution.