-
📸 We've added a new feature to the site, the Showcase! You can check it out at this link: EmiraForum.com Showcase
🖼️ You can read a bit more at the announcement thread as well: Showcase -- an upgraded Journal
Climate Change
- Thread starter Eagle7
- Start date
- Status
think about this? 
Resisting a dive into epistemology for fear of being branded the most off-topic poster on the forum.
I tend to drive my cars till they are not worth repairing any more, my last Discovery served me 16 years and I replaced it with a cheap as chips BEV as a daily. I burn very little fossil fuel now despite doing >12000 miles annually and I certainly don’t change my car every few years as I tend to buy my cars outright. The Emira will be a low mileage weekend / Road trip car, so majority of my miles are emission free. I feel I am doing my bit, being a environmentally responsible car enthusiast. The i4 version will be the more efficient of the two… Well, at least it makes me feel better about myself….
Yikes. You’ve clearly fallen for the globalist propaganda, including the whole “world is overpopulated” nonsense. If you think that man made global warming is a thing, can you explain how CO2 drives it? What would be the “correct” parts per million CO2, since 400 odd ppm is “too high” according to climate modelers (not actual physicists)? Are you aware that we’ve had ice ages with FAR HIGHER atmospheric CO2? Or that it’s been hotter with LOWER CO2? How would you explain that if CO2 is driving the temperature?You cite many data points in your post, and none of them are wrong. However, you miss the bigger picture:
First of all, there is almost nothing in our current "Western lifestyles" that is sustainable. That photo you pasted above could just as easily be a photo of a tractor on its way to extract the minerals that went into your smartphone or computer. Or, it could be mining the gold that's in your wedding ring. Hell, it could even be digging up the metals that will eventually go into our Emiras! Or, it could be generating the plastic that goes into an artificial limb.
Point being: it doesn't matter what the end result is, whether it's a bomb or a new kitchen sink; the end result is fundamentally unsustainable.
And I agree with you that humanity seriously needs to "pump the brakes" on all of this expansion, in order to buy us more time to figure out all of the bugs of our modern civilization. And believe me, there are MANY bugs:
I argue that the ONLY way to achieve this is to immediately reduce our human population across the board — through completely voluntary, non-violent, and ethical methods, of course! (I've had this discussion enough times by now to know how people tend to interpret such a statement without that disclaimer
- Destruction of wildlife and biodiversity
- Microplastics leaching out into every part of the globe
- Factory farming and degradation of topsoils
- Global warming, increased wildfires, and rising sea levels
- etc.
) We're in the "everything crisis", and we won't make it out alive just by switching to paper straws.
However, if people don't like the above suggestion, then here's an alternative: immediately cut your energy use by 90%, take no more than one flight every 3 years, and live in a 640 sq.ft. home. But of course, nobody's going to do that. We all want someone else to fix all of our problems without any impact on our lifestyles.
And so, if people don't like THAT answer, then here's one last alternative: human civilization will collapse.
The bottom line is that man is not driving temperature with CO2 production, it the sun that drives it, period. Since the 1970’s there’s been a constant cry to reduce emissions as the world will end in (a number less 20) years- it’s a grift. CO2 is plant food, and the world is (thankfully) greening as a result of higher levels. Under 200 ppm, plants no longer grow. We have been in a carbon drought compared to our global history- extra CO2 is a very good thing and anyone who says otherwise has either nefarious intent or is ignorant.
Now if we want to talk about ACTUAL pollution, then I’m all-in with you. We can start with India and China and their filthy emissions, and we can stop pretending that electric cars are helping the environment.
FederGigant
Emira Fanatic
If the sun is driving global warming, could you explain how that can be possible even though solar activity got less during the last 50 years straight while CO2 and temperature were rising during that period?
Please get your facts together, also regarding over-population and what comes with it, it's really getting embarrassing here
- Thread starter
- #46
Whew!!! I spent most of yesterday doing things around the house and running errands, waiting for this topic to be put into its own thread, and I log in and see not only does it have its own thread, but there are 3 pages already!! Holy moly macaroni.
There are so many comments and statements that it would be silly to try and list them all to do individual replies. One person in particular, @eriegz asked what I had seen, read, etc. and wanted to know what those were, which is a perfectly reasonable and fair question. Here's the thing. I read a lot everyday, and now that I'm retired, I consume a tremendous amount of written material online. I honestly can't remember every article, report, etc., where I read it, when, the actual title or have the link to them to post for reference. I have saved many articles that I thought were particularly interesting as pdf files, but I literally have hundreds of them in multiple folders, and it would take hours and hours to try and go through all of them to find some of the more relevant ones to the topic at hand here.
My approach on this is to more or less use a gestalt philosophy of gathering impressions, knowledge and understandings, to be able to see the, or 'a' bigger picture. Hardly anything seems to be truly singular, there's usually multiple areas of information and knowledge that apply and require examination, to gain a more complete understanding than just looking at or specializing in one thing.
So... having said all that, I think I'll start this off by blowing this entire thing up into the air and see what happens.
This will be a doozy, but I'll leave this comment here by itself so people don't miss it and just read what follows without understanding how or why I'm saying what I'm saying.
There are so many comments and statements that it would be silly to try and list them all to do individual replies. One person in particular, @eriegz asked what I had seen, read, etc. and wanted to know what those were, which is a perfectly reasonable and fair question. Here's the thing. I read a lot everyday, and now that I'm retired, I consume a tremendous amount of written material online. I honestly can't remember every article, report, etc., where I read it, when, the actual title or have the link to them to post for reference. I have saved many articles that I thought were particularly interesting as pdf files, but I literally have hundreds of them in multiple folders, and it would take hours and hours to try and go through all of them to find some of the more relevant ones to the topic at hand here.
My approach on this is to more or less use a gestalt philosophy of gathering impressions, knowledge and understandings, to be able to see the, or 'a' bigger picture. Hardly anything seems to be truly singular, there's usually multiple areas of information and knowledge that apply and require examination, to gain a more complete understanding than just looking at or specializing in one thing.
So... having said all that, I think I'll start this off by blowing this entire thing up into the air and see what happens.
This will be a doozy, but I'll leave this comment here by itself so people don't miss it and just read what follows without understanding how or why I'm saying what I'm saying.
Last edited:
I will absolutely answer your questions once you have answered mine. You met my inquiry with just additional questions- the hallmark of ignorance (I don’t mean as an insult, using the word in its literal form).If the sun is driving global warming, could you explain how that can be possible even though solar activity got less during the last 50 years straight while CO2 and temperature were rising during that period?
Please get your facts together, also regarding over-population and what comes with it, it's really getting embarrassing here
Looking at the highest emissions per captia is the best way to understand the actual pollution a country is producing. If you want to start somewhere then the countries with highest per captia levels and a significant population would the best ones to focus on. It also helps if they are well developed and wealthy as they are then well placed to act.
Tons per capita with population of over 10 Million
- Canada - 18.58
- Australia - 17.10
- Saudi Arabia - 15.94
- United States - 15.52
- ... (Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium, Iran, South Korea, etc...)
- China - 7.38
- ... (loads more countries)
- India - 1.91
Note these values are simple emissions values and hence do not include emissions generated in a country as a result of producing items that are consumed in another. Factoring that in would bump both Saudi and the US above Canada and Australia, and drop China and India further down the list.
- Thread starter
- #50
Global warming
We're hearing that global warming is the result of the emissions we're pumping into the atmosphere, but this completely fails to explain the previous ice ages, and the following warming periods that melted those ice ages. Those happened without any influence from us, and that should not be ignored as there's clearly some other agency at work here. What is it? How did this happen and why?
My theory - Global warming and ice ages are caused by the sun, but not the way you might think.
The earth has a core of molten iron. Iron is a conductor of electricity. Our sun generates powerful and extensive magnetic fields. When you move a conductor through a magnetic field, it generates electricity and heat in the conductor. This is the basis for our electric motors. The earth rotates around the sun, which means our molten iron conductor core is constantly moving through the sun's magnetic fields. This is what literally powers our planet. The electricity created in the core also creates tremendous heat, enough to melt rock and metal because the heat is confined inside the core of the earth and basically has nowhere to go. We see evidences of it though, through volcanic activity where the core pressure is able to push through weak spots in the earth's crust.
Sunlight does not penetrate down through the depths of the ocean where the deep ocean currents are. Thus it cannot heat them. The core temperature can however, warm those deep currents up from underneath, and it's those deep currents that circulate and transfer their temperatures around the planet.
We can see with the normal change of seasons, how just a few degrees of tilt of the earth can change the surface temperature from 100+ degrees in the summer, to snow and ice and even sub-zero temperatures in the winter. The band for the possibility of life and the ability to sustain it is almost unimaginably thin and fragile; miraculous even. Recent information coming back from the Voyagers that were sent out decades ago, have shown that not only is outer space not empty, it's filled with unbelievably violent forces. Our planet stands out as an almost miraculous oasis in the midst of all this.
So what happens if the sun's magnetic fields suddenly change their strength one way or the other? If the fields weaken, that will generate less electricity in the core of the earth, which will generate less heat, which will cause the deep ocean currents to cool down. That will cause everything above them to cool down and global temperatures will cool down as a result. If the magnetic fields weaken dramatically, the result could cause a planetary freeze, and as we all know, it doesn't take water long to freeze once the temperature drops below freezing. This doesn't require years; it could literally happen with weeks or even days depending on how fast and how far down the strength of the sun's magnetic fields decline. Volcanic activity would also suddenly decline. The sun would also probably be generating less radiant heat, so there would be less heat reaching our atmosphere which would aid in the cooling down of the surface. This much change and type of change, would also create high velocity winds on the surface, which would further speed up the freezing of the surface.
Now after that has happened, let's say suddenly the sun's magnetic fields regain their strength, and even possibly increase them beyond normal for a brief time. Almost like a solar misfire, with a sudden drop in strength followed by a momentary burst of strength until it stabilizes again. Now we have a sudden burst of electricity and heat in the earth's core, which causes an immediate warming of the deep ocean currents, and much greater volcanic pressure and activity, spewing hot gases into the atmosphere. As the warmer currents begin to circulate around the planet, temperatures above them also begin to warm, and this starts melting ice. The increase of solar magnetic energy would also most likely cause an increase in the radiant energy of the sun too, which would be generating more heat towards the atmosphere of the earth, warming it as well. Now we have the melting and end of that ice age, however long it may have been. If this all sounds quite violent, it is, but that seems to be the normal in the universe. What we have now and our life, appears to be distinctly NOT normal. More on that later.
Science always wants to extend the time for anything out way beyond anything that can be proven or verified, because that allows them the freedom to say things like "might have, could have, may, possibly" etc. so their theories can be published and positively received by their peers, and of course, the bestowers of grant money. The reality is, things may have happened and still could, a LOT faster than they want to admit or even consider. When Mt. St. Helens blew up, flattening and destroying everything in front of the explosion, we were being told the damage this disaster had caused was going to take 100 years for the area to recover. It recovered in 15 years. Nobody predicted that. The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986 was another one where we were told life wouldn't be able to recover there for 100,000 years. It's already recovered, and they have videos of wildlife running around in an area where it was thought that would be impossible. The earth and nature is far more robust and powerful than we realize or scientists are generally willing to acknowledge. One of the most powerful life forces on earth happens to be insects, as small as they are. They recover the fastest, and are vital to the overall function of the eco system.
There's a difference between climate and environment. Climate is controlled by the sun over which we have no control. The environment however is a different matter, and that's something we very much have control over and need to focus on instead of climate change.
My next post will cover more aspects of climate change, and go more into environment as well as other related topics, but this is enough for now and I'm sure is going to chum the waters considerably lol.
We're hearing that global warming is the result of the emissions we're pumping into the atmosphere, but this completely fails to explain the previous ice ages, and the following warming periods that melted those ice ages. Those happened without any influence from us, and that should not be ignored as there's clearly some other agency at work here. What is it? How did this happen and why?
My theory - Global warming and ice ages are caused by the sun, but not the way you might think.
The earth has a core of molten iron. Iron is a conductor of electricity. Our sun generates powerful and extensive magnetic fields. When you move a conductor through a magnetic field, it generates electricity and heat in the conductor. This is the basis for our electric motors. The earth rotates around the sun, which means our molten iron conductor core is constantly moving through the sun's magnetic fields. This is what literally powers our planet. The electricity created in the core also creates tremendous heat, enough to melt rock and metal because the heat is confined inside the core of the earth and basically has nowhere to go. We see evidences of it though, through volcanic activity where the core pressure is able to push through weak spots in the earth's crust.
Sunlight does not penetrate down through the depths of the ocean where the deep ocean currents are. Thus it cannot heat them. The core temperature can however, warm those deep currents up from underneath, and it's those deep currents that circulate and transfer their temperatures around the planet.
We can see with the normal change of seasons, how just a few degrees of tilt of the earth can change the surface temperature from 100+ degrees in the summer, to snow and ice and even sub-zero temperatures in the winter. The band for the possibility of life and the ability to sustain it is almost unimaginably thin and fragile; miraculous even. Recent information coming back from the Voyagers that were sent out decades ago, have shown that not only is outer space not empty, it's filled with unbelievably violent forces. Our planet stands out as an almost miraculous oasis in the midst of all this.
So what happens if the sun's magnetic fields suddenly change their strength one way or the other? If the fields weaken, that will generate less electricity in the core of the earth, which will generate less heat, which will cause the deep ocean currents to cool down. That will cause everything above them to cool down and global temperatures will cool down as a result. If the magnetic fields weaken dramatically, the result could cause a planetary freeze, and as we all know, it doesn't take water long to freeze once the temperature drops below freezing. This doesn't require years; it could literally happen with weeks or even days depending on how fast and how far down the strength of the sun's magnetic fields decline. Volcanic activity would also suddenly decline. The sun would also probably be generating less radiant heat, so there would be less heat reaching our atmosphere which would aid in the cooling down of the surface. This much change and type of change, would also create high velocity winds on the surface, which would further speed up the freezing of the surface.
Now after that has happened, let's say suddenly the sun's magnetic fields regain their strength, and even possibly increase them beyond normal for a brief time. Almost like a solar misfire, with a sudden drop in strength followed by a momentary burst of strength until it stabilizes again. Now we have a sudden burst of electricity and heat in the earth's core, which causes an immediate warming of the deep ocean currents, and much greater volcanic pressure and activity, spewing hot gases into the atmosphere. As the warmer currents begin to circulate around the planet, temperatures above them also begin to warm, and this starts melting ice. The increase of solar magnetic energy would also most likely cause an increase in the radiant energy of the sun too, which would be generating more heat towards the atmosphere of the earth, warming it as well. Now we have the melting and end of that ice age, however long it may have been. If this all sounds quite violent, it is, but that seems to be the normal in the universe. What we have now and our life, appears to be distinctly NOT normal. More on that later.
Science always wants to extend the time for anything out way beyond anything that can be proven or verified, because that allows them the freedom to say things like "might have, could have, may, possibly" etc. so their theories can be published and positively received by their peers, and of course, the bestowers of grant money. The reality is, things may have happened and still could, a LOT faster than they want to admit or even consider. When Mt. St. Helens blew up, flattening and destroying everything in front of the explosion, we were being told the damage this disaster had caused was going to take 100 years for the area to recover. It recovered in 15 years. Nobody predicted that. The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986 was another one where we were told life wouldn't be able to recover there for 100,000 years. It's already recovered, and they have videos of wildlife running around in an area where it was thought that would be impossible. The earth and nature is far more robust and powerful than we realize or scientists are generally willing to acknowledge. One of the most powerful life forces on earth happens to be insects, as small as they are. They recover the fastest, and are vital to the overall function of the eco system.
There's a difference between climate and environment. Climate is controlled by the sun over which we have no control. The environment however is a different matter, and that's something we very much have control over and need to focus on instead of climate change.
My next post will cover more aspects of climate change, and go more into environment as well as other related topics, but this is enough for now and I'm sure is going to chum the waters considerably lol.
FederGigant
Emira Fanatic
Ok, I'm asking this honestly: are you kidding? You are not asking for third grade physics, are you?
To make it short: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and absorbs long wave radiation that's coming from the sun. If the energy in form of the radiation is captured by CO2, it can't escape the atmosphere anymore and leads to rising temperatures. There are MILLIONS of satellite measurements of infrared spectra out there from the past 40 years that show that those exact wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 can't escape to space anymore which leads to more downward infrared radiation. I mean, there is a direct, empirical link between those effects, measured during the last few decades, also known to global players in the oil business that calculated the global warming for 2020 as exact as 0.1 degrees in the 80s, but then said "ah, f**k it, let's just continue filling our bank accounts".
Of course there are other factors as well, as for example another greenhouse gas in the form of methane - also a man made problem
. But ignoring the facts you just look either uninformed and ignorant, or very stupid, which are not the nicest options to choose from. However I also know that you can't convince fundamentalists with facts. For example I also read that science is the new religion somewhere in this thread 
That dude really got the point of how science works.FederGigant
Emira Fanatic
Nice theory, also with a hell of a lot of "woulds and coulds and maybes and I believes", just like the reals scientists you mentioned. You are right that there could be a lot of potential things happening to cause a change in climate. Maybe it was due to the sun somewhere in the past. However solar activity went down each year for the last 50 years, as I already mentioned which exactly counteracts what you just said about the sun being the reason. Also it's nonsense to think that the sun just changes it's mind from time to time and looses a lot of radiation just to then come out of it's depression with being even stronger than before. Those are just things that you made up in your mind, without any proof or even any hint that points in that direction.
- Thread starter
- #53
Aaaand here we go.
I did say it was my theory, didn't claim it to be scientific fact. Even you too use "maybe" to avoid conceding anything "Maybe it was due to the sun somewhere in the past".
50 years is nothing, a blip compared to the age of the earth and our solar system. Are we measuring the magnetic fields of the sun to create a history? Have we been doing that for the past 50 years?
Why is it nonsense that a raging ball of energy might have its glitches every now and then? Why would you think it's a never changing constant? Do we even know why stars are what they are and do what they do? Every time you start your car, it goes from off to an rpm above idle, then settles to it's idle speed. Energy bursts always have an ADSR envelope (attack, decay, sustain, release); that's not something I made up. In fact, I believe that's actually science!
FederGigant
Emira Fanatic
Yep, 50 years is nothing. But still enough for us to heat up the whole Earth by roughly 1.5 degrees. That's the thing, we are just talking about a timeframe of not more than 100 years where all the magic happened. In your last post you said that if the sun decided to chill a bit, the world would be a frozen iceball within weeks by the wayAaaand here we go.
I did say it was my theory, didn't claim it to be scientific fact. Even you too use "maybe" to avoid conceding anything "Maybe it was due to the sun somewhere in the past".
50 years is nothing, a blip compared to the age of the earth and our solar system. Are we measuring the magnetic fields of the sun to create a history? Have we been doing that for the past 50 years?
Why is it nonsense that a raging ball of energy might have its glitches every now and then? Why would you think it's a never changing constant? Do we even know why stars are what they are and do what they do? Every time you start your car, it goes from off to an rpm above idle, then settles to it's idle speed. Energy bursts always have an ADSR envelope (attack, decay, sustain, release); that's not something I made up. In fact, I believe that's actually science!
And also: yes, we are measuring everything that the sun does as far as possible.CO2 is a (mild) greenhouse gas in a vacuum, but in the homogeneous solution of our atmosphere it has almost no impact on warming thanks to the presence of water vapor. You could quadruple the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere (currently at a tiny .04%) and have zero appreciable warming from present levels. Methane is a non-facto, it breaks down quickly into CO2 and water, it does not sit around and fill the air.Ok, I'm asking this honestly: are you kidding? You are not asking for third grade physics, are you?
To make it short: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and absorbs long wave radiation that's coming from the sun. If the energy in form of the radiation is captured by CO2, it can't escape the atmosphere anymore and leads to rising temperatures. There are MILLIONS of satellite measurements of infrared spectra out there from the past 40 years that show that those exact wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 can't escape to space anymore which leads to more downward infrared radiation. I mean, there is a direct, empirical link between those effects, measured during the last few decades, also known to global players in the oil business that calculated the global warming for 2020 as exact as 0.1 degrees in the 80s, but then said "ah, f**k it, let's just continue filling our bank accounts".
Of course there are other factors as well, as for example another greenhouse gas in the form of methane - also a man made problem
Science is not a belief system. It is not a system where consensus determines truth (just ask Copernicus and Galileo)- facts, data, repeatability and predictability are what matter. By those measures, the anthropomorphic climate argument fails in spectacular fashion. I will write more on this, not because I hope to change your mind (as you seem to be in the religious “belief” camp, and there’s no arguing facts with someone who just believes because they were told), but because others who have heard the CO2 lie repeated (by the same liars that tell you there are infinite genders) might get something from hearing the truth. You can throw around your ad hominem attacks, but it only proves that you have a very shallow understanding of the topic (likely from movies, a professor, friends or Wikipedia), and it does nothing to dissuade me from the notion that you are reacting because your beliefs are being challenged, not because you are a person that looks at data and understands what it means.
I’m jumping into my car today (with my large family
) for a long drive to the beach. I hadn’t intended to, but I will now pack my laptop as I can’t peck out a long post with my oversized fingers on a tiny phone screen.FederGigant
Emira Fanatic
I really liked the part where you made fun of all people that don't want to be seen as male or female. That just enlightened me so much. Still waiting for your answer by the wayCO2 is a (mild) greenhouse gas in a vacuum, but in the homogeneous solution of our atmosphere it has almost no impact on warming thanks to the presence of water vapor. You could quadruple the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere (currently at a tiny .04%) and have zero appreciable warming from present levels. Methane is a non-facto, it breaks down quickly into CO2 and water, it does not sit around and fill the air.
Science is not a belief system. It is not a system where consensus determines truth (just ask Copernicus and Galileo)- facts, data, repeatability and predictability are what matter. By those measures, the anthropomorphic climate argument fails in spectacular fashion. I will write more on this, not because I hope to change your mind (as you seem to be in the religious “belief” camp, and there’s no arguing facts with someone who just believes because they were told), but because others who have heard the CO2 lie repeated (by the same liars that tell you there are infinite genders) might get something from hearing the truth. You can throw around your ad hominem attacks, but it only proves that you have a very shallow understanding of the topic (likely from movies, a professor, friends or Wikipedia), and it does nothing to dissuade me from the notion that you are reacting because your beliefs are being challenged, not because you are a person that looks at data and understands what it means.
I’m jumping into my car today (with my large family
No, just kidding, I don't mind hearing from you again and I'm out of here for now.Funny side fact: Methane has 28 times the effect to the climate that CO2 has and stays in the atmosphere for roughly 12 years before splitting to CO2 (yes, again a problem) and water. I wouldn't call that "quickly".
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #57
And have we been tracking the magnetic strength for the same last 50 years to see if there's a correlation to the temperature? Do we have a baseline from the previous 50 years or longer to know if this is part of the normal process of things?Yep, 50 years is nothing. But still enough for us to heat up the whole Earth by roughly 1.5 degrees. That's the thing, we are just talking about a timeframe of not more than 100 years where all the magic happened. In your last post you said that if the sun decided to chill a bit, the world would be a frozen iceball within weeks by the way
In my last post I did not say "if the sun decided to chill a bit the world would be a frozen ice ball within weeks". That's what you saw because you wanted to see that, so you can continue to oppose what's being said. What I actually said is "If the magnetic fields weaken dramatically, the result could cause a planetary freeze". The key word is "dramatically"; that's a bit different than "chill a bit".
Before you continue, I would suggest you examine why you needed to change what I said so you could dismiss what I didn't actually say. You're demonstrating a need to win or at least appear to win what you consider a contest of some kind, rather than objectively examine and discuss ideas and theories.
I'm all for a truly scientific discussion that's objective and realistic, but I'm not interested in getting bogged down in a contest of winners or losers. If that's what you are interested in, then I'll probably not respond to your posts again, especially if you continue to make up things I didn't say and dismiss them as though I actually said them. This thread could be a great opportunity to discuss something important, as long as we don't let it degenerate into verbal combat. Stick to theories, information, facts as we know them, etc. and this could be quite interesting.
And now the curtain is lifted….I really liked the part where you made fun of all people that don't want to be seen as male or female. That just enlightened me so much. Still waiting for your answer by the way
Funny side fact: Methane has 28 times the effect to the climate that CO2 has and stays in the atmosphere for roughly 12 years before splitting to CO2 (yes, again a problem) and water. I wouldn't call that "quickly".
So yes, you are an idealist, you gender response confirms it. You do not practice science, you have subscribed to a religion. A religion where truth has no meaning; in its place is the dogmatic religion that you’ve been spoon fed by globalist totalitarians. To make it worse, it’s a religion that you’ve bought wholesale and without question- all components intact and present; from man made global warming to gender theory to global overpopulation. I’ll just go out on a limb here and say that you also think that race is your defining characteristic, meritocracies shouldn’t exist, gender affirming mutilation of children is acceptable and (coming soon to campuses and Marxist lectures near you) pedophelia isn’t evil, it’s just a preference. Sorry, I’m not in your cult religion.
NASA offers a view of the current scientific consensus here: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
The wider site also includes a high level view of the information that has led to this consensus https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There is a detailed report from The Royal Society here that also covers some of the questions raised in this thread https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Ro...nce-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
The wider site also includes a high level view of the information that has led to this consensus https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There is a detailed report from The Royal Society here that also covers some of the questions raised in this thread https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Ro...nce-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
...Except the Earth has its own magnetic field, generated by the molten iron in the core, which is literally a force field protecting us from space-borne radiation that would be lethal to all life. Magnetic field lines can not cross, so although the sun's magnetic field can interact with the Earth's it simply cannot interact directly with the Earth's core; the mere existence of Earth's magnetic field is proof of that.
Moreover, the sun's magnetic field is relatively chaotic; it even completely reverses polarity every eleven years or so! That last happened in 2012-2012. There has been no increase in solar magnetic activity activity over the past 100 years that could explain the warming, and the vast majority of the heat in the Earth's core is generated by radioactive decay which is a very, very stable process (e.g. it is used for the most accurate atomic clocks).
- Status
Emira Forum Images
Emira Forum Images
