Evidence Showing Climate Change Models Wrong in 2008, Sunspot Predictions Correct

a trace gas that makes up .00038 of the atmosphere drives the climate and the sun has absolutely no effect on climate

It's 0.038. Which is a 35% increase from the beginning of the industrial age. Odd coincidence, that.

And listen, how could a blood alcohol level of 0.5% kill you? It's such a small percentage! CLEARLY THAT MEANS IT HAS NO EFFECT!
 
Just as you proved, you don't know the difference. You're an idiot.

Great way to avoid the question.

millionaire_idiot_fail.jpg
 
Once upon a time a long time ago, a crazy scientist Galileo Galilei went against the "consensus" and said "the earth is not the center of the Universe. Matter of fact the Earth goes around the sun." "Balderdash!" said those in charge. And they sought to silence he who would DARE reject the consensus. He was right, the majority was wrong.
 
Once upon a time a long time ago, a crazy scientist Galileo Galilei went against the "consensus" and said "the earth is not the center of the Universe. Matter of fact the Earth goes around the sun." "Balderdash!" said those in charge. And they sought to silence he who would DARE reject the consensus. He was right, the majority was wrong.

Once upon a time long ago, the scientific method didn't exist and consensus was determined by religious figures.

Nowadays, consensus is determined by overwhelming evidence, not by the screaming, fanatical, religious folks who used to dominate in previous times and now want us to ignore the reality of global warming.

And if Galileo lived today, he would spit on you for even relating the two situations.
 
Once upon a time long ago, the scientific method didn't exist and consensus was determined by religious figures.

Nowadays, consensus is determined by overwhelming evidence, not by the screaming, fanatical, religious folks who used to dominate in previous times and now want us to ignore the reality of global warming.

And if Galileo lived today, he would spit on you for even relating the two situations.

No, he would laugh at twerps like you who think the IPCC is a scientific body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

The head of the IPCC is an economist
 
You're right.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.

The number of climate sceptics is increasing and it's due to the increasing evidence gathered by more and more scientists showing a much tighter correlation between the suns activity and the temperature here. Why would this be so radical? The sun is our primary source of energy by far, adjustments in it's output would of course affect us.

Come on, your a reasonable guy here, don't be like most of the rest of the left and stubbornly stick to a theory that proclaims what it does because it allows them opportunities to reduce man's lifestyle and demand material sacrifices.
 
You're right.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.

You don't. You haven't bothered to uderstand the science. And you reject new findings in favor of outdated and incomplete science. Solar cycle 24 is predicted to be weak. Weak sunspot activity leads to more cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. Sunspot activity disrupts the cosmic ray flow hitting the planet so with decreased sunspots comes increased cosmic ray flux. Cosmic rays facilitate cloud formation by causing water vapor to condensate. During periods of increased sunspot activity, cosmic rays are disrupted and fail to reach the water vapor in the atmosphere (in as great of concentration as when there is less sunspot activity). Less clouds form during periods of increased solar activity causing an overall increase in average global temps. Less sunspot activity allows more cosmic rays to hit the atmosphere and cause more water vapor to condensate and form more clouds which then result in an overall cooling.


qdisplay_medium.jpg
 
Back
Top