Climate change = REAL get it through your HEADS here is PROOF stop using CO2 FOSSIL FUELS
Drumpf BTFO
Lucas Roberts
Other urls found in this thread:
atmos.washington.edu
geosociety.org
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
en.wikipedia.org
nasa.gov
google.com
tallbloke.wordpress.com
reality348.wordpress.com
en.wikipedia.org
mises.org
en.wikipedia.org
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
en.wikipedia.org
metoffice.gov.uk
web.archive.org
twitter.com
Landon Gomez
That graph doesn't account for solar output
Carter Hernandez
fuck off faggot.
IPCC is more corrupt than FIFA
Jordan Perez
I'll do it when you convince China or Russia to do the same.
Tyler Robinson
Look at the graph, hes taking the piss but doing a shit job of it because
Ryder Thomas
Isn't solar output basipally constant throughout history
Henry Ross
>tfw my country will never be a nuclear powerhouse even though we have all the uranium...
Why live?
I hate heat so god damn much
Jonathan Collins
Am I correct to guess this post is satirical?
Jose Gonzalez
Is this a meme? If there were really no correlation as this graph suggests than surely the "greenhouse gas" theory would have been BTFO long ago
Luke Barnes
nope
Isaac Roberts
Most of its in Arnhem land. Aboriginals would absolutely lose their shit.
Landon Green
Why can't your side win this argument without shilling?
Caleb Sanders
Look closer at the pic
Noah Kelly
Moving manufacturing back to the US will lower emissions whether it's part of the plan or not. More environmentally friendly solutions already make fiscal sense in the western world.
The problem with emissions are all the pooinloos and chinese that are booming and still stuck in the steam age. As long as they are allowed to operate like they do this will never be solved no matter how much of a bad goy Trump is.
Jayden Robinson
Is it not worthwhile for the US to invest in sustainable technology for India and China to use?
Jaxon Sanders
>During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum.
Its funny. The Thames would freeze solid and they'd have fairs on the ice.
Christian Garcia
That will happen faster under Trumps economic policies, and the US/west will get more in return as well.
Jordan Scott
Solar cycles. The sun is actually going into a low point now, we're expected to go into a small ice age in about 10 years.
Connor Cooper
lmfao you better hope so as well as hope it negates the damage in ripping up the paris agreement on day one will do
Colton Taylor
All that chart shows is that dinosaurs are gonna come back.
What are you against the return of the dinosaurs you libcuck.
Jaxon Smith
Opposite is true.
When the temperature rises, so does rise CO2 levels, since sollubility of CO2 in water changes.
Ultimatelly CO2 does NOT influence global temperatures, not even a little !
SO2 (volcanic) influences climate in multiple ways, sometimes raising and sometimes lowering temperature, depending on mode. Sun output also is not that constant, as (((scientists))) want you to believe...
Current politician whining and boasting (((they))) can control climate and pretend to plan degrees celsius here or there is proud, stupid and actually ridiculous...
Lincoln Sullivan
How do you then explain the melting of the snowball earth during which the only thing that changed was CO2 concentration in the air?
How do you explain deglaciation due to orbital forcing which alone could've not caused the kind of deglaciation undergone and would've required some sort of greenhouse effect?
Studies:
atmos.washington.edu
geosociety.org
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
Gavin Thompson
No problem. They want to destroy the planet.
Carson Cooper
You are not in a Captain Planet episode you retard
Evan Cooper
Where did you get increasing solar output?
Eli Hughes
From looking at a 4.5bn timescale which is the scale OPs graph is shown on and yours isn't
Grayson Stewart
Trump doesn't actually believe that climate change is fake, he just pretends to because he realises that china (and to a lesser extend other developing nations, india etc) will NEVER agree to reduce emissions. And if they do it'll require extreme sacrifice on our part.
The developing world sees climate change as something the white people made up to keep them down, and so absolutely refuse to do anything about it.
Oliver Taylor
Ohh.. didn't see that was BILLIONS of years...
You should look at the past few hundred thousand years, not billions.
Owen Anderson
You can literally burn coal without putting all the toxic shit in the air, in today's age, leaf.
When Dahnald refers to climate change, he's referring to how incredibly biased scientists go on about how "muh fossil fuels" are gonna end the fucking world. These scientists though, usually just use graphs that go back by only 100 or so years. While you do have a true graph, that simply shows that the earth has probably been hotter. Even if the scientists are right about "muh CO2," the earth will just turn into a giant jungle in the worst case scenario.
Camden James
China are leading the world in climate change reform
Whys that?
>These scientists though, usually just use graphs that go back by only 100 or so years. While you do have a true graph, that simply shows that the earth has probably been hotter.
We don't want it to get to the point that it has been previously because the earth will not be able to sustain our current population and standards of living
Kayden Morgan
notice how the co2 changes follow the temperature changes, rather than the other way around
Elijah Long
...
Aiden Jackson
Billion years is irrelevant, the environment has changed drastically since then.
Fucking continents drifted apart, don't you think that influences climate?
Brayden Nguyen
Who cares about climate changes anyway?
It's not like we're going to be alive when the consequences actually happen
Joseph Cooper
We have empirical evidence of CO2 influencing the climate when no other variable could've. In the past yes it has always followed temperature increases as a result of orbital variations but the amplifying effect CO2 has would have had to have taken place otherwise the recorded temperatures wouldn't have been possible
Yeah probably does, idk I was just correcting OPs pic, pic related is recent temperatures
Chase Walker
Unfortunately.
Justin Smith
How old are you because you might be
Wyatt Hernandez
25.
I don't consider 0.1 degrees higher temperature a major consequence
Carson Gutierrez
> Where did you get increasing solar output?
Sunspots are DARK places on solar surface, that do not shine in 6000K range. There are above solar surface magnetic arcs, which shine in 1M K, but total energy output is much less above a Sunspot. Consider it a magnetic knot, that prevents convection, which is a dominant energy transport into photosphere.
So at the times, when there is lot of Sunspots, the total solar output energy is less, even if radio emisions are higher.
It is just a pitty, that many missions measuring total solar irradiance (arround 1366W/m2) do not match each other, they differ between each other by cca 5x the actual variance, and there are gaps between measuring missions, so it's hard to tell, how it involved and how much just changed measurement method...
some biased info here:
en.wikipedia.org
Austin Brown
>FOSSIL FUELS
Like what? There is a huge misconception that petroleum is a "fossil" fuel but it's not. Methane is a "fossil" fuel.
Lincoln Harris
>2000
>it's a current year
pick one
Joseph Morgan
It's already happening you fucking idiot.
Unless you plan to off yourself in the next 20 years you are gonna be living through it.
Charles Wright
> Where did you get increasing solar output?
Also, Solar cycle influences galactic rays, which make seeds for clouds (more Solar plasma = better shield against galactic rays = less clouds)
Henry Clark
>Sunspots are DARK places on solar surface
Why does the sunspot count matches solar irradiance?
Aiden Wood
NASA have said there is an increase in TSI but not enough to account for the warming observed.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
nasa.gov
Jaxson Johnson
Evidently, Sun output was not that much fainter earlier... This just means, that scientist, who claims this Solar model, is wrong...
Also note, that Earth is pinned onto exact orbital distance by double resonance with planet Venus (both orbit-orbit and orbit-spin), by far the most exact resonance in Solar system. It is too much good to be random. Someone has made for us here a planet with relatively perfectly stable climate for billions of years...
Carter Sullivan
Ocean acidifcation will probably have set in properly, probably a bit warmer and slightly stronger hurricanes. Really depends on how long you live for. Won't you have kids?
Where you going with this Czech. We already account for the variance of the sun in temperature measurments
Isaac White
Petrol is derived from oil which formed out of the fossilized dead shit and trees.
Juan Morris
>Solar cycle influences galactic rays
But you do know that earth gets much much more galactic rays in a recent years?
Sebastian Cox
>Retards don't realize that we're still in an ice age and coming out of it, so obviously shit's slowly getting hotter
I'm not denying Climate Change, but i'm just saying it ain't as bad as people are making it out to be.
Ryder Garcia
CO2 doesn't precede warming, it follows it.
Christian Myers
>Liberals in charge of actually knowing anything
Isaiah White
It can
>Evidently, Sun output was not that much fainter earlier
Why and source?
> It is too much good to be random. Someone has made for us here a planet with relatively perfectly stable climate for billions of years...
Czechanon your meant to be an atheist
Charles Hernandez
But it can affect it. see
Jaxon Miller
> NASA have said ...
Yes, NASA will say anything, for what it gets grants...
And will not say anything, for which it would loose the grants...
Same with IPCC. They cannot find, that "climate change" does not exist or is nothing unusual, because their institute will loose it's reason d'etre.
For example - Solar cycles, it is much more profitable to investigate them, then to actually know and reveal it to the public. Because for that investigation, missions are needed, which means staff employed, grant money, and actually great observations, that public would not want to pay for otherwise... So they pretend the great "mystery" of unknown reason of solar cycles, even if I know, and they know, and we know that they know, but it is much more worth for it to be unknown, so that it can be investigated...
Sebastian Parker
sigh...
co2. It works both ways.
Nathaniel Bennett
The world can't stop using fossil fuels or the petro dollar will collapse.
Liam Morales
>Same with IPCC. They cannot find, that "climate change" does not exist or is nothing unusual
I'm certain they'd admit it and I'm almost 100% sure they know that there have been plenty of periods warmer than today. The real issue is whats causing it (us) and will it like all other previous natural cycles spurred on by CO2 and the greenhouse effect stop (not unless we do).
Luke Watson
> Czechanon your meant to be an atheist ...
Here in Czechia, organized religion is very little represented, but actually allows more spiritual people not to be bound by the Dogma.
I'm an amateur scientist, who is very reasonably convinced of "intelligent design" of Solar system and more, from the point of view of physics...
Consider a Moon - it's orbit exactly matches the Sun spin. Sun spins strangely, it's equator spins fast, it's poles are bracketed by polar magnetic lines turning heliosphere plasma. With the region at 40° latitudes, where each Sunspot cycle starts, is perfectly synchronized the Moon. This makes the Earth pulse in and out during orbit in synchronized rythm with Sun spin, which makes the Earth core still molten - otherwise the Earth should have the already cold core. (Earth is magnetically linked with Sun by plasma fibers and may have influence back on Solar cycles...) The liquid core generates magnetosphere, which protects Earth's atmosphere from Solar wind depleting it, as was the case with Mars...
So not only Venus is synchronized 13:8 and 12:8 with Earth, but Moon is synchronized with Sun spin. The asteroid belt is synchronized with outer planet barycenter traces and is there to cleanup "garbage" asteroids, which would otherwise cycle that long, until they smash at something, and good it's not us...
Too good "Intelligent design" to be random...
Than consider bio-computer with DNA tape for protein synthesis, that has got no surviving prototypes. From all, that evolved here, there are surviving prototypes, but DNA was "imported" ...
There are even more things to the "Intelligent design", than can be written here in short...
Chase Morgan
Nasa lives in the corrupt swamp of DC. I saw their planes that are full of equiptment being used as private transports for politicians. they even have hot air force chicks as stewardesses serving drinks on them. probably costs tax payers a fortune .
Nathan Morales
>Too good "Intelligent design" to be random...
Yeah because its not random. Wouldn't it be odd if complex life had somehow developed on a planet which was constantly being bombarded by asteroids? That's exactly why we don't live on a planet where something like that occurs, we simply never would've been able to evolve.
>Than consider bio-computer with DNA tape for protein synthesis, that has got no surviving prototypes. From all, that evolved here, there are surviving prototypes, but DNA was "imported" ...
Speaking on our design for a second couldn't there be far better ways to construct our body? Like why the fuck do we eat through the only pipe in our body that we also breathe through? So many people die every year from choking on food when the entire problem could've never existed if we seperate pipes through which we could breathe and eat food.
Asher Cox
google.com
Example from Tallbloke Talkshop - there are much more articles about various climate-related theories:
tallbloke.wordpress.com
This one, how Antarctic involves in climate change seems very reasonable:
reality348.wordpress.com
Nicholas Fisher
>let's suffocate the plants
>that won't end badly
Brayden Johnson
How do you explain the snowball earth when only CO2 concentration changed and it somehow thawed out? Other things can certainly influence climate but CO2 certainly does as well
researchgate.net
Christian Ross
>Lets not give the plants any water
>That won't end badly
Jeremiah Ramirez
I believe Donald Trump will change his views on climate change when he seeks the best people for the issue, aka, scientists.
Bentley Taylor
President Elect Trump
Tyler Campbell
> ... when the entire problem could've never existed ...
No, intelligent design during evolution also means, that the weak and deformed die sooner...
Also - notice, that most important organs are duplicated, which makes it much more fail-safe (loosing one eye does not make you blind, using one hand can be survived, etc...).
Also - unlike DNA, which has been brought here from outside (Genesis says plants are older than solar system), most other forms were evolved (breeded) here... God or ETs are like a gardener, very patient one...
IF the Earth conditions were random, it will make probability of life evolution on other planets in galaxy much much less probable ...
en.wikipedia.org
------------
>probably costs tax payers a fortune .
Consider, that what you spend on your own employees, is not leaked. They spend it in your shops and taxes return back, merchants have money and spend them for more things...
Only money, paid to foreigners or to tax hells (called tax paradise for no good reason) are lost...
So tax-payer money spent by NASA employees are again returned to tax-payers, no problem and no lost...
Brandon Jackson
What is the anthropic principle you massive fucking retard.
We live here today precisely BECAUSE our solar system randomly happened to be extremely stable, not the other way around.
There are billions upon billions of solar systems in the universe. Of course some of them, by plain old probability, are bound to be perfectly suited to life.
If our solar system WASN'T perfectly balanced and stable, we wouldn't be here, so from our perspective it HAD to be that way for us to exist.
Nothing "intelligent design" about that.
Nolan Perez
>m-muh CO2
Aiden Wood
I hope you get paid for this shitposting
Yes of course it is real.
Question is more like "Is it too late to stop the real bad crap from happening or not". If it is too late, trying to clamp down would just end up hurting the nation more in the long run.
There'd be less resources around to fund alternative energy sources, not to mention all the damages climate change is likely to incur.
Now go check those models and you'll see how deep in it we really are.
Would you gamble your nation and her peopled future on bad odds?
Christopher Reed
>No, intelligent design during evolution also means, that the weak and deformed die sooner...
But thats just natural selection which wouldn't require intelligent design
>Also - notice, that most important organs are duplicated, which makes it much more fail-safe (loosing one eye does not make you blind, using one hand can be survived, etc...).
Yeah but thats clearly just an example of natural selection, those who only had one eye died out quickly because as soon as they lost it they were blind. That doesn't require an intelligence to be possible
>Also - unlike DNA, which has been brought here from outside (Genesis says plants are older than solar system), most other forms were evolved (breeded) here... God or ETs are like a gardener, very patient one...
idk if thats true but I don't think anyone knows the origins of life and DNA
>IF the Earth conditions were random, it will make probability of life evolution on other planets in galaxy much much less probable ...
Yeah but they couldn't be. Whatever probability that had to be surmounted was clearly surmounted and its really not that suprising considering just how vast the universe is.
Think about it like this, there is no possible situation in which our immeadiate surrounding would be incredible hostile to life making living very difficult because we never would've been able to evolve to our state in the first place. Every possible scenario in which we exist requires that our surroundings lend itself to our existence thus always opening up the 'intelligent design' argument making it worth very little.
Jonathan Richardson
Those changes are on a timescale of millions of years numbskull. The current changes in climate are far more rapid than natural fluctuations.
The transition between an ice age and a warm era takes tens of thousands of years. Imagine if the temperature normally changed by a whole degree celsius every century during those transitions in the past, as it has for the past 100 years. The planet's temperature would have changed by hundreds of degrees celsius, which would have killed all life many times over.
William Mitchell
> What is the anthropic principle ...
I know, that it may seem to be this way and it may be the opposite way too. (either being here from intelligent design, or be here because random conditions allowed and different conditions would not allow...)
But I've got more evidence, which I cannot post here now, that makes me know for almost sure, that it is a matter of design.
> Genesis says plants are older than solar system ...
... and beside else, also scientific evidence says so:
en.wikipedia.org
The complete functioning DNA mechanism appeared here just few millions years beside "Late heavy bombardment", when water was brought onto Earth by asteroids. IF it could happen at random within few million years, it could happen at random any time later again and different, which never more happened - because this level of sophistication as is DNA cannot happen at random...
Surely some living forms were brought here with asteroid water...
And then it is quite possible, that they are older than 4G years of Sun age...
Thomas King
I've yet to see one of these that doesn't have a retarded x axis.
Wyatt Gutierrez
Yeah I can't wait till all the ice o Antarctica melts and the government is forced to tell us the truth
Jack Bell
I don't see error bars. Or a link to the raw data.
That's something for all you anons to keep an eye out for and ask about. Error bars. They never use them, and there's a good reason for that.
Our sensors have gone from being wildly inaccurate (+/- 1 degree C and read by eye) to very accurate (fractions of a C, digital) in the span of 50 years. It would be extremely easy to make something look like it got warmer by just increasing the fidelity of your measurements.
Ask for raw data. You won't get it. I'm being completely serious here. They never let the public see the raw data.
Ask to see metastudies of their predictions vs what occured. You won't find many, and the ones that you do find will show that these people aren't very good at predicting the future.
Global warming is being used as a red herring for more government control of resources.
Until they can provide the raw data with all of the relevant error information to the public there is no reason to trust them.
Anthony Reed
> The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess
Nope empirical data of previous warming events. See>Models are off
Nope, here are five correct models. They can focus all they want on the predictions that haven't been correct but the truth is there are plenty that are spot on. Besides a lot of their representation of data and models is thrown out by not including error bars. See pic related for what they did to misrepresent
static.skepticalscience.com
static.skepticalscience.com
i.guim.co.uk
static.skepticalscience.com
nsidc.org
William Parker
>Whatever probability that had to be surmounted was clearly surmounted and its really not that suprising considering just how vast the universe is.
Yes, please read the article about Drake equation...
en.wikipedia.org
It is a philosophical or scientific calculation, how much is probable, that we can meet other life on other planet... On what all it depends.
Then, IF it depended beside all else also on multiple coincidences with other planets, the probability of OTHER life in galaxy would be even much more less...
-------------
>The planet's temperature would have changed by hundreds of degrees celsius
Assuming same linear trend would continue all the time, which is a nonsense... It never means, that the PEAK rate should be sustained for indefinitelly long...
> A Lukewarm Greenhouse - Still Waiting For Greenhouse
www.john-daly.com
Nolan Rivera
If you want correct predictions see
Aiden Hernandez
You are an idiot conspiracy theorist with way too much time on your hands, and your shitty English makes you look even dumber than you already are. Just stop posting.
Jason Campbell
I know what the drake equation is but its not even entirely relevant. There are universes in which we were able to exist and universes in which there were no planets with similar conditions to earth, there is no overlap. The intelligent design argument of the solar system makes no sense because there doesn't exist a planet which we could ever possibly exist that is also incredibly hostile to life.
Justin White
I still don't see error bars or a link to the raw data.
The gray area that is provided in some of those graph is a mean standard error. It represents where their back-fit likely resides. That is not the same as a graph that includes the error of their measurements vs time.
Any global warming graph with proper error bars will start out with large, centigrade plus error bars with older measurements rapidly becoming smaller over time.
And when I asked for the wrong day. I'm talking about a link to a spreadsheet of some form. I want the data as they processed it.
John Evans
Climate change is natural and not caused by humans. Stop being conned by the kikes
Nicholas Edwards
>I still don't see error bars or a link to the raw data.
I never claimed they had error bars or raw data but
There's your error bars
nsidc.org
And here's the raw data
metoffice.gov.uk
>That is not the same as a graph that includes the error of their measurements vs time.
Not exactly sure whats meant by this but not all data is thermometers
>Any global warming graph with proper error bars will start out with large, centigrade plus error bars with older measurements rapidly becoming smaller over time.
How large are you expecting error to be? The error of even older instruments still isn't really that bad and considering there are literally thousands world wide the resulting error would likely be tiny
What is it naturally due to
Nicholas Howard
>l-look at all these complicated graphs!! How can you not be convinced yet?
I ain't seeing any reasoning from you at all, just some bullshit graphs that are supposed to prove something.
Why should I believe any of what you say?
Connor Walker
Well unless you think these scientists can time travel or they're just very lucky your going to need to get an explanation for why they keep on accurately predicting the climate
But if you want the case for the causal link between CO2 and temperature.
During the snowball earth the only relevant changing factor was the accumulation and increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as it was spewed out by volcanoes which eventually caused it to thaw out.
researchgate.net
And in previous delgaciations due to orbital variations the heat provided by the variation alone wouldn't be close to sufficient to cause the kind of delglaciation seen and the only plausible explanation for this added heating would be the greenhouse effect as a result of CO2 and other greenhouse gases
atmos.washington.edu
There are many other examples of CO2 causing heating in the past and we have a valid mechanism by which this can be demonstrated to work. So if we were to now alter CO2 concentration today would we not then increase the temperature of the earth as has happened many many times in the past?
Sebastian Long
> ... idiot conspiracy theorist ...
Norway? Barnevernet fascist? Keep calm...
Anyone, who ever says "conspiracy theorist", is a LIAR, who wants to silence any opposition, very usually true one...
But here I even do not talk about any conspiracy, you just learned to mark any opposition a "conspiracy"...
> There are universes ...
You very objectivelly may not know, if there is any similar universe beside our one.
But we may - also very objectively - know, that there is "something" beside our 3D surface of 4D universe hypersphere...
And of cause, even the universe is very large and there surely may be more similar "gardens" (planets) ...
> Climate change is natural and not caused by humans. Stop being conned by the kikes
Neither this is exact.
SOME part of climate change is natural and SOME part of climate change is man-made.
What is ratio of these two parts can be a matter of discussion and by my opinion is much different from main-stream scientists, who get grants to find results needed by politicians, who give those grants...
Anyone, who claims either 100% man-made or 100% natural, is in blunder. But also those, who admit natural 5% and man-made 95% are in blunder or stray. It is very probably more than half natural...
Possibly good explanation is that "reality348" link here ...
Adam Cox
>But we may - also very objectively - know, that there is "something" beside our 3D surface of 4D universe hypersphere...
And how would we do that
Anthony Lee
It's not climate change that we dispute but MAN MADE climate change.
Looking at that chart the planet was much warmer before humans ever existed so how do you explain higher temperatures without our presence to affect them?
Samuel Thomas
>how do you explain higher temperatures without our presence to affect them?
Other things can produce CO2 and other things can heat the earth
David Jenkins
rude...
>Other things can produce CO2
Right but we know the human element is what is tipping the balance towards accumulation.
>other things can heat the earth
True. But Milankovitch cycles and the sun have been ruled out.
Blake Peterson
> During the snowball earth the only relevant changing factor ...
And there could be changes in Solar output, changes in inter-planetary medium (travel through a different inter-stellar region).
What is pretended to be "dark matter" is actually a normal baryonic inter-stellar medium, a "dark" dust, as seen in V838-mon explosion light echo...
Then there is no actual proof of snow-ball Earth. It is an informed guess at best...
> the heat provided by the variation alone wouldn't be close to sufficient to cause the kind of delglaciation seen
1. I do not trust such calculations. Depends on constants and trajectories, which can be barely proofed...
2. There is volcanic SO2, which makes climate changes. Single strong eruption makes few years colder, but multiple eruptions in sequence make the climate warmer. (oxidizing capacity of atmosphere is limited) Link between SO2 in ice and climate variations can be seen...
Alexander Adams
Reminder that in the past week, AGW shill threads have skyrocketed in popularity, with the same flags doing the constant and incessant shilling of arguments that get btfo'd in every thread.
I wonder what could have happened in the past week to wake up the (((climate change))) shills?
Asher Long
He doesn't understand pacing and leading
Alexander Anderson
The only debate shills haven't lost yet.
Austin Barnes
> And how would we do that
Sorry, not yet, not this year, not here...
So again it's just trust or trust not. Sorry.
>I wonder what could have happened in the past week to wake up the (((climate change))) shills?
Someone (Trump), who they cannot that easily silence, has broken their ivory towers...
(And sometimes I suspect them, that they make these shill threads, in order not to discuss h... or economy or something real...)
Gavin Thomas
...
Ethan Roberts
>Right but we know the human element is what is tipping the balance towards accumulation.
Yeah we can analyse the isotopes of carbon in the air to show this
>True. But Milankovitch cycles and the sun have been ruled out.
SO2 to name one
>And there could be changes in Solar output, changes in inter-planetary medium (travel through a different inter-stellar region).
This can mostly be accounted for though, we know all these things
>What is pretended to be "dark matter" is actually a normal baryonic inter-stellar medium, a "dark" dust, as seen in V838-mon explosion light echo...
Your getting way too theoretical there when we have a perfectly sound explanation
>Then there is no actual proof of snow-ball Earth. It is an informed guess at best...
Of course there is. Besides all we need is historical temperature change to show that it would've not been possible without CO2
>1. I do not trust such calculations. Depends on constants and trajectories, which can be barely proofed...
Which part?
>2. There is volcanic SO2, which makes climate changes. Single strong eruption makes few years colder, but multiple eruptions in sequence make the climate warmer. (oxidizing capacity of atmosphere is limited) Link between SO2 in ice and climate variations can be seen...
Even to accept this what makes you think that despite having insanely similar physical properties in this regard that SO2 can cause the greenhouse effect to occur but CO2 can't despite both being able to in laboratory conditions
Angel Baker
ITT
>retards think they can debunk over 100 years of climate science by putting a few brackets around certain words and posting anime faces