Idiots like the U.S. Geological Survey? Are we about to have a magnetic reversal? - USGS.gov https://www.usgs.gov › faqs › are-we-about-have-magn... Yes. We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of ...
Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the conversation then. Other than the snark, did you have something constructive to add?
True. Unlike increased CO2, deforestation is an actual problem. Incomparably the most important factor in slowing and preventing deforestation of the planet has been substitution of fossil fuels for wood in heating, cooking and industry.
Why does a magnetic pole reversal terrify you and the rest of your Gaian cult? You don't see any rational people melting down over it. Just your side. Why? There have been many magnetic field reversals. They've never had any effect on climate before. Why do you think one would affect climate this time around? What makes this time special, the degree of your religious fanaticism? I hope you understand that the universe isn't affected by your feelings.
He said it was a dumb idea to say it affected climate, and since you're taking issue with his statement, that would indicate you disagree. Do you disagree, or are you just upset at him for being right?
I cited the U.S. Geological Survey for her background. Please see #376. I have no idea what the climate effect of magnetic pole reversal might or might not be.
You tell me since it wasn't me that introduced the topic. To be fair, I'd say you have no basis for, or evidence of your assertion. No one does, and no one has experienced magnetic pole reversals in our history. Since you don't have these data, it does make your absolutism rather defensive, wouldn't you agree? My first comment still stands. Why are y'all so afraid of the actual science? Your attempt to deflect your own religiosity on others is telling. It demonstrates just how inflexible, unwilling to discuss the truth folks like you are. And I would remind you that just as the universe isn't interested in my feelings, neither is it interested in yours. Certainty like that... it takes a heap of entitlement on your part though... LOL
That claim is unrelated to fact. The Gaian cult is the one that is terrified human activities like use of fossil fuels somehow imperil the planet. Why are you falsely claiming that climate realists -- who are clearly more rational than anti-CO2 hysteria mongers -- are melting down over it? There have been many century-scale warming episodes. They've never been caused by rising CO2 before. Why do you think only CO2 could have caused warming this time around? What makes this time special, the degree of your religious fanaticism? I hope you understand that the universe isn't affected by your feelings.
Because that's what the evidence indicates. Remember, unlike you, we go by hard evidence. I doubt you'll be able to understand that. Feelings-based people can't understand logical people. Your theory does not explain the increased backradiation, the polar amplification, more warming at night and in winter, the stratospheric cooling, the changes in longwave emission. Therefore, your theory is wrong, regardless of the intensity of your belief in it. You're using "It was natural before, so it must be natural now" logic. "Forest firest were always naturally caused before, so humans can't cause forest fires." "Climate always changed naturally before, so humans can't change climate." Both statements are invalid, for the same reason.
No it doesn't. The evidence does not merely indicate but states explicitly that CO2 cannot possibly have a significant effect on global surface temperature. Remember, unlike you, we go by hard evidence. I doubt you'll be able to understand that. Feelings-based people can't understand logical people. Wrong on all counts: 1. The extent of increased back radiation just indicates higher CO2, more and higher contrails, and increased human nighttime heat output, but does not imply significant surface warming. 2. Polar amplification is normal in all climate change because of the distribution of land masses, positive ice-albedo feedback, etc., as the Ice Ages prove. 3. More warming at night and in winter is caused by increased human energy use, which is insignificant compared to the solar constant during the day, but very significant compared to what the earth receives from the moon, stars and planets at night. 4. The (ambiguous) evidence for stratospheric cooling just shows that higher stratospheric CO2 emits IR to space more efficiently above the altitude where H2O condenses out, with no more than a tiny effect on the surface. 5. The tiny changes in LW emissions are due to increased CO2 at high altitude, and likewise have no significant effect on surface temperature. Therefore, your theory is wrong, regardless of the intensity of your belief in it. No, you are using "It was natural before, but it can't be natural now" illogic. No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. We know for a fact that some forest fires have been caused by humans -- specifically, some have been deliberately set by hate-driven anti-fossil-fuel psychopaths to whip up climate hysteria. That is a bald strawman fallacy. You simply made it up. Right: because you made them up.
It doesn't look like that much of a minimum to me, more of an interval of normal sunspot activity following the 20th century maximum. Of course, almost all solar physics researchers were predicting an extended minimum, and Cycle 25 has been far more active than expected. Anti-fossil-fuel ninnies attribute the resulting global surface temperature increase, absurdly, to CO2. The fact is, we don't understand and can't predict the chaotic solar activity cycle. Nor are the earth's climate and surface temperature understood or predictable, and the notion that they are determined by CO2 is nonscience.
Here the author of the alternative climate paradigm from the link in the OP elaborates on his work. In an honest world it would generate serious debate among climate scientists. Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role Posted on November 4, 2023 by Javier Vinos This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the poleward transport of heat are one of the main ways in which the planet’s climate changes naturally. It also shows that changes in solar activity affect this transport, restoring the Sun as a major cause of global warming. Since climate models do not properly represent heat transport and the IPCC reports completely neglect this process, this new hypothesis will not be easily dismissed. I am sure that over time it will lead to a better understanding of how the climate changes naturally, and hopefully less climate hysteria. Continue reading →
Yep! To point out how wonky many of the denialist theories are!! I got a list of some of the more hilarious ones if you want to embrace those too! Climate's changed before It's the sun It's not bad There is no consensus It's cooling Models are unreliable Temp record is unreliable Animals and plants can adapt It hasn't warmed since 1998 Antarctica is gaining ice View All Arguments... https://skepticalscience.com/ My favourite is still “Earth moved into a warm part of space” which is basically what Shaviv and Svensmark are trying to convince people of
I brought it up as an example of weird unfounded theories. https://www.rainforest-alliance.org...y-climate-change-skeptics-and-how-to-respond/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8499632/
Absolutely. And I and others have posted such research continuously on this forum for literally years. Global warming is beneficial and the so-called green energy solutions (wind and solar) cause severe economic harm to low income families globally. Meanwhile Leonardo flits around the globe in a private jet.