When Marxists discovered that they couldn't overthrow western society by force, they devised a way to get us to destroy ourselves.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

around the time of the industrial revolution

---

Go on.

---

---

So if shown a chart with higher CO2 and cooler temperatures you would say what?

---

that co2 is not the only thing that influences temperature and climate

---

By looking at your graph, it appears to be the most influential. What are the "other things" you speak of, and why is there so much emphasis on controlling CO2

---

some examples (source):



emphasis is on co2 because as you noted it (combined with other ghgs) is influential, and also the factor over which we have the means to assert control

---

So if you lower CO2 and it doesn't cool off, what's next?

---

a lot of re-testing hypotheses in the scientific community, i'd imagine.

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

around the time of the industrial revolution

---

Go on.

---

---

So if shown a chart with higher CO2 and cooler temperatures you would say what?

---

that co2 is not the only thing that influences temperature and climate

---

By looking at your graph, it appears to be the most influential. What are the "other things" you speak of, and why is there so much emphasis on controlling CO2

---

some examples (source):



emphasis is on co2 because as you noted it (combined with other ghgs) is influential, and also the factor over which we have the means to assert control

---

I want climate alarmists to
Prove to me that

1) CO2 in the atmo is bad. Looking at the fossil record we know that more CO2 in the atmosphere produced greater plant growth. Co2 is needed for growing crops and maintenance of forests. More CO2 availability is good for humanity as it leads to easier and greater crop yields. Additionally it helps natural forests.

2) prove to me that warmer and more moderate global temperatures is bad. More moderate Temps lead to less extreme storm systems, more rainfall as moisture is released from ice sheets, making it available for hydrologic cycle instead of being trapped in the ice sheets. Less dramatic differences in ocean water Temps means less extreme cycles.

Explain how any of this is bad.

VitruvianAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

around the time of the industrial revolution

---

Go on.

---

---

So if shown a chart with higher CO2 and cooler temperatures you would say what?

---

that co2 is not the only thing that influences temperature and climate

---

No *****..that big bright light in the sky during the days has more to with climate change than CO2. The sun's climate changes too, and it has it's own cycles.

CO2 is making the world greener, as Freeman Dyson and a few other smart guys, have pointed out.

Maybe quit listening to people that claim science is done by consensus.

Better the earth warms a bit than it gets cold and we wind up with another Snowball Earth.

---

variability in solar irradiance does affect climate (specifically surface temperature), but the data suggests not to the extent ghgs do. for a simple example, it's why venus is hotter than mercury even though mercury is closer to the sun.

Quote:

---

When Marxists discovered that they couldn't overthrow western society by force, they devised a way to get us to destroy ourselves.

---

What temperature are we supposed to be? How can we adjust if we overdo it?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

What temperature are we supposed to be? How can we adjust if we overdo it?

---

I do 76 day, 73 night on thermostat.

Old McDonald said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

around the time of the industrial revolution

---

Go on.

---

---

So if shown a chart with higher CO2 and cooler temperatures you would say what?

---

that co2 is not the only thing that influences temperature and climate

---

No *****..that big bright light in the sky during the days has more to with climate change than CO2. The sun's climate changes too, and it has it's own cycles.

CO2 is making the world greener, as Freeman Dyson and a few other smart guys, have pointed out.

Maybe quit listening to people that claim science is done by consensus.

Better the earth warms a bit than it gets cold and we wind up with another Snowball Earth.

---

variability in solar irradiance does affect climate (specifically surface temperature), but the data suggests not to the extent ghgs do. for a simple example, it's why venus is hotter than mercury even though mercury is closer to the sun.

---

Lack of radiation shielding from an inner metallic core.

Venus has no magnetic radiation shielding while mercury has a weak one. Mercury gets up to 830 degrees.

Venus gets up to 880 degrees.

There is very little difference but the majority of that difference is explained by venus' lack of magnetic shielding so more radiation hits its atmo.

Maybe some of that difference is the greenhouse effect. But not the majority of it.

Additionally, we have seen Earth's magnetic shield weaken significantly over the past 50 years or so which would also explain any rising Temps although that has yet to be definitively proven without using ALOT of data manipulation.

You take into account a higher solar cycle (which scientists have shown to be the case) and a weaker magnetic shield and it perfectly explains the temperature increases more definitely than the CO2 levels.

Scientists are predicting a reduced solar cycle starting around 2030. If Temps keep rising after that then I will believe CO2 is a major contributor.

Tabasco said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

What temperature are we supposed to be? How can we adjust if we overdo it?

---

I do 76 day, 73 night on thermostat.

---

I more than cancel you out. You're welcome.

Just to be safe, we need to cede more autonomy, money, liberty, and agency to Joe Biden, John Kerry, and whatever three-name is running the UN.

Don't you agree, Libs?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Tabasco said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

What temperature are we supposed to be? How can we adjust if we overdo it?

---

I do 76 day, 73 night on thermostat.

---

I more than cancel you out. You're welcome.

---

Thanks brah!

i'm no climate alarmist by any means. i don't subscribe to the belief that man-made emissions will render the planet inhospitable in 12 years, much less any of our lifetimes.

the earth has had periods where atmospheric carbon and surface temps were higher than they are now, and will again regardless of what humanity does. but human civilization as we know it didn't exist when that was the case. we are a resilient and adaptive species, but accelerating those cycles makes it harder to adapt without pain.

maroonthrunthru said:

---

Exactly when did the phenomenon of Climate Change begin ???

Let's chart it…

---

I think it was somewhere around 2010 when they realized that the global warming prediction narrative was falling apart and they had to switch to a new term, climate change

Old McDonald said:

---

i'm no climate alarmist by any means. i don't subscribe to the belief that man-made emissions will render the planet inhospitable in 12 years, much less any of our lifetimes.

the earth has had periods where atmospheric carbon and surface temps were higher than they are now, and will again regardless of what humanity does. but human civilization as we know it didn't exist when that was the case. we are a resilient and adaptive species, but accelerating those cycles makes it harder to adapt without pain.

---

I agree. This is why we need to cede our liberties to those faces we all constantly see on the TV, whether or not what they proclaim aligns with actual observations.

Tell me how you discount solar cycles and magnetic shielding and I will believe that minute CO2 level changes make any appreciable impact on the planet.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Tell me how you discount solar cycles and magnetic shielding and I will believe that minute CO2 level changes make any appreciable impact on the planet.

---

beyond the data i've provided, i don't know enough about solar cycles and magnetic shielding to discount its impact. i'd be happy to review any literature you have on the subject.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

around the time of the industrial revolution

---

Go on.

---

---

So if shown a chart with higher CO2 and cooler temperatures you would say what?

---

Probably the same thing climate scientists said in the 70s

"CO2 is collecting in the atmosphere and blocking sunlight, we're all going to freeze to death."

The climate has always been changing but it started to unnaturally change after the industrial revolution when humans released a ton of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

there was actually a mini ice age before the industrial revolution and that quickly went away after.

American Hardwood said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

around the time of the industrial revolution

---

Go on.

---

---

We knew what global atmospheric CO2 was in 1780?

---

Sigh... does no one know about ice core samples?

Pantera said:

---

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/thinking-smartly-about-climate-change/



Thank God for climate change!

---

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it here: Global Warming was a "thing" (if you want to call it that) in the very late '70s. I'm very familiar with it as it was an argument that we prepared for in high school debate. We never "ran" (i.e. argued) it but we responded to it a time or two and prepared for it most years. Incidentally, this is how I know the whole thing is a hoax -- most of the issues we debated outside of federal budget and a few other mainstream economic issues were nonsensical stuff written by loons. HS (and college for that matter) debate, at least policy debate, was all about one team trying to pile the most dead bodies up -- usually by arguing the other side's policy arguments were going to lead to war or, worse, nuclear war. This was the '80s, so the threat wasn't that far off. Whether you could get global war from, for example, changing employment standards for people living in poverty (as we argued my senior year in HS) is an interesting take, but if you watched a round, you'd hear things go that way.

My point is anything you heard or hear in HS debate rounds should never be taken seriously. GW is one such thing.

Sometime in the early 2000s they had to rebrand GW into Climate Change because the data, even the bogus data they were producing, wasn't squaring with the facts that the world wasn't actually getting warmer. Plus, it allowed them to argue cold had impacts too. Its all BS, but even if it wasn't BS, unless we do something about China and India, two far larger polluters than the US, anything we do won't have any effect.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

around the time of the industrial revolution

---

Go on.

---

---

So if shown a chart with higher CO2 and cooler temperatures you would say what?

---

that co2 is not the only thing that influences temperature and climate

---

By looking at your graph, it appears to be the most influential. What are the "other things" you speak of, and why is there so much emphasis on controlling CO2

---

some examples (source):



emphasis is on co2 because as you noted it (combined with other ghgs) is influential, and also the factor over which we have the means to assert control

---

So if you lower CO2 and it doesn't cool off, what's next?

---

Well just in order to understand the science, we should investigate why CO2 doesn't have an effect. Go back to basics and figure out why CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the lab, but not in the atmosphere. Using spectroscopy, do the strong and weak absorption band at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers, and 2 & 5 micrometers occupy different parts of the spectrum for CO2 in the lab than it does in the atmosphere? If so, why do molecules behave differently when in captivity than when they are free? This would be a major breakthrough in physics and chemistry.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Its all BS, but even if it wasn't BS, unless we do something about China and India, two far larger polluters than the US, anything we do won't have any effect.

---

This is true. And if it's not BS, then that means Greta is right and we're all doomed anyways. So it doesn't matter.