[rsimpson]

Man's impact vs our Sun: - which factor do you think impacts Earth's climate more?

Sun’s energy output per second[ ≈ 3.8 x 10²⁶ joules.
Total energy consumption by humanity (all time) ≈ 10²³ to 10²⁴ joules.
The Sun produces more energy in a little more than one second than humans have ever generated or consumed in all of history.

[nn0wheremann]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

https://x.com/MikeZaccardi/status/1826572582100815928

I can't post screenshots so one will have to click on the link

The earth wobbles and weather is random. . and the magnetic poles are on the move!

Hurricane Ernesto passed East of there, and a low pressure system sucks weather from it’s North neighbors as it passes by.

[spd2918]

Many scientists believe co2 increases with higher temps (i.e. co2 does not raise temps). But it is a number that can be tracked, fudged, and used to collect more taxs.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by LeRoySmith

I think the trouble with conversations like these is the widespread lack of trust we are experiencing. When I was a kid we trusted our teachers and schools, science, the press, elections etc.

Over the past 20 or 30 years so many of the things we thought were fact have been brought into question, some with very good evidence what we've been told is false. I don't know how or if we will ever get that trust (naivety) back. Trust lost is difficult to regain.

When we talk about climate change / global warming or any one of a thousand other topics the truth and the facts are all mixed in with the rhetoric. If the people giving us the facts are too invested in a particular outcome for them to be neutral and above question the questions come automatically.

I'd be happy to get on the climate change train as I think digging up and consuming fossil fuels is a poor long term plan. Some day, I think we will figure out a way to produce enough energy to sustain ourselves without burning oil and coal. Until that day burning fossil fuels (& nuclear) is the best option we have. Convince me you don't have a hidden agenda and maybe I'll give you a listen.

I don't think I've seen any clear evidence either way that's convincing enough for me to get on a chat/forum and tell people how wrong they are. I know what I think but I'm also very willing to admit I could be wrong in my beliefs.

The "trust" was lost when the Nobel Prize became political when it started honoring people who made failed climate forecasts and failed climate models. Trust does not come from narratives, but from data, where each person can see and think for themselves. One example will be given about Tonga Volcano & Global Warming -- Aug 26 at 1 PM at Bridgeport. Other talks are listed here ... The Villages Weather Club

[Taltarzac725]

Weather vs. pollution caused global warming.

[DrMack]

NASA tells me all I need to know. The Milankovitch cycle can’t be refuted. Science lays it out pretty clearly. We have an elliptical orbit with our sun. There are periods where we are closer and times when we are much farther from the star. For myself, I kind of wonder how some go so far off the beaten path to tout their suspicions that are sometimes way off base.


Wait about 30,000 more years if you are into a cooler climate. The complete cycle is 100,000 years but our path will be a little farther from the sun then. For now, look to even warmer temperatures in our climate as the Earth still needs to orbit closer.

[LeRoySmith]

Originally Posted by DrMack

Wait about 30,000 more years if you are into a cooler climate.

My memory isn't great these days so I'll probably forget by then. That said I have kids and grandkids so I hope we figure it out pretty soon and stop being so inflammatory in these discussions and work towards the right action / solution.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

When you alter an ecosystem / change the environment, the climate will change. Since before the rise of the industrial revolution mankind has been disrupting ecosystems in small ways. But since the industrial revolution, with population soaring and ever increasing destruction of habitats, terraforming, pollution and more, it is undeniable. Yet, there are those will try. Like the kids who broke a window, they will deny they had anything to do with it. Then they will ask if they can have their ball back.

That's just serving up a softball

To continue that analogy, the window is in a 60 story, 2000-unit high-rise apartment building, and yes, the kid (human use of fossil fuels) did MINIMAL damage by breaking one of 4,000 windows. Of course, the demolition crew with 3 tons of dynamite used repetitively over 20,000 years (the sun, Earth's orbit, underwater volcanos, etc.) are the ones responsible for 99.99999999% of the changes.

Thanks, that was easy.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by rsimpson

Man's impact vs our Sun: - which factor do you think impacts Earth's climate more?

Sun’s energy output per second[ ≈ 3.8 x 10²⁶ joules.
Total energy consumption by humanity (all time) ≈ 10²³ to 10²⁴ joules.
The Sun produces more energy in a little more than one second than humans have ever generated or consumed in all of history.

Again, please don't confuse the gullible and indoctrinated with THE FACTS.

[DrMack]

Originally Posted by LeRoySmith

My memory isn't great these days so I'll probably forget by then. That said I have kids and grandkids so I hope we figure it out pretty soon and stop being so inflammatory in these discussions and work towards the right action / solution.

I believe human beings will endure, they will just have adapt and many living near the ocean will need to relocate to more climate resilient terrain. Meanwhile the con artists will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on short sightedness selling their snake oils for the quick buck. Human nature also seems to press on.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by DrMack

I believe human beings will endure, they will just have adapt and many living near the ocean will need to relocate to more climate resilient terrain. Meanwhile the con artists will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on short sightedness selling their snake oils for the quick buck. Human nature also seems to press on.

I agree. But remember, the only way these snake oil salesmen (global warming caused by human activity proponents) can cash in is by somehow making the normal global warming cycle seem to be the result of human activity, claim it is imminent rather than 30,000 years away, and convince the gullible that we can "fight" it by spending the $168 TRILLION that the Paris accords would cost. Oh, Al, I see the ice caps did not disappear in 2010.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by DrMack

NASA tells me all I need to know. The Milankovitch cycle can’t be refuted. Science lays it out pretty clearly. We have an elliptical orbit with our sun. There are periods where we are closer and times when we are much farther from the star. For myself, I kind of wonder how some go so far off the beaten path to tout their suspicions that are sometimes way off base.

Wait about 30,000 more years if you are into a cooler climate. The complete cycle is 100,000 years but our path will be a little farther from the sun then. For now, look to even warmer temperatures in our climate as the Earth still needs to orbit closer.

Sorry, Milankovitch cycle theory is incomplete. The reasons are discussed and illustrated at the Weather Club's "Pleistocene" talk. Note: the period between Interglacial Warm Periods are getting longer, and the Glaciations are getting colder, which Milankovitch does not explain. This is the real climate change problem, which the media will not talk about, but is talked about here ... The Villages Weather Club

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by DrMack

NASA tells me all I need to know. The Milankovitch cycle can’t be refuted. Science lays it out pretty clearly. We have an elliptical orbit with our sun. There are periods where we are closer and times when we are much farther from the star. For myself, I kind of wonder how some go so far off the beaten path to tout their suspicions that are sometimes way off base.

...

That's a refreshing viewpoint. From NASA's site on climate change:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

Originally Posted by rsimpson

Man's impact vs our Sun: - which factor do you think impacts Earth's climate more?

Sun’s energy output per second[ ≈ 3.8 x 10²⁶ joules.
Total energy consumption by humanity (all time) ≈ 10²³ to 10²⁴ joules.
The Sun produces more energy in a little more than one second than humans have ever generated or consumed in all of history.

I have a sizeable piece of aluminum on my lanai. On bright, sunny days it is hot to the touch while on cloudy days it is just warm and at night, without the sun, it is cool to the touch. Clearly, all that energy from the sun is having an effect. However, add a little fossil fuel and the piece of aluminum will get hot enough to take the skin off my hand. No matter how large the contribution from the sun, a little man-made input can make a difference.

I have not seen one comment ever that denied paleoclimatology or Milankovitch cycles. I have not seen one comment ever that claimed that the only influence on climate was man made. Y'all want to argue that size matters and yours is bigger than mine but no climate scientist claims otherwise.

[BTburton]

“Whether” you believe in climate change, which oh, BTW, we experience every day and have been since the beginning of time, OR global warming or anything else the elite, gaslighting, globalists call it, there is absolutely nothing any of us can do about it. There’s only one God, and He knows.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

That's a refreshing viewpoint. From NASA's site on climate change:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

I have a sizeable piece of aluminum on my lanai. On bright, sunny days it is hot to the touch while on cloudy days it is just warm and at night, without the sun, it is cool to the touch. Clearly, all that energy from the sun is having an effect. However, add a little fossil fuel and the piece of aluminum will get hot enough to take the skin off my hand. No matter how large the contribution from the sun, a little man-made input can make a difference.

I have not seen one comment ever that denied paleoclimatology or Milankovitch cycles. I have not seen one comment ever that claimed that the only influence on climate was man made. Y'all want to argue that size matters and yours is bigger than mine but no climate scientist claims otherwise.

OMG---where do I start?

OK, start with NASA.
A government agency 100% dependent on the budget made by a government that espouses anthropomorphic climate change. What a surprise that they concur with that myth. No different than the "95% of climatologists" who are forced to dance to that same tune. The more accurate statement would be that 100% of marionettes are controlled by the puppet masters that hold the strings. Case closed

Now, that aluminum fallacy:

A classic apples/oranges error.
A "sizeable" piece of aluminum? how big? 10 sq. ft.? 20? 50? Just to prove a point, I'll give you 100. And it's noted that exposure to the sun warms it. Of course. But note the surface area of the Earth is just over 5.6 TRILLION sq. ft. That's the comparison being made???? Then, note that burning "a little" fossil fuel, presumably on only a few square feet makes it very hot. The equivalent in that fallacy is that you would have to burn about 1 trillion times that amount of fossil fuel to get the same effect on the Earth. Again, case closed,