Another Reason Christians are Dangerous

[Drich]

You guys are all f-ing morons..

Do you know where or what the 'big fix is for global climate change?'

Carbon credits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

It is a tax Clinton was going to put in place to charge you bleeding heart dummies too dee da dee to know in order for one to claim climate change based on carbon emissions, one must account for 1000s years of solar output (how much heat/light the sun produces ) in relation to how much the planet absorbs. We MAYBE have 100 years of data. So with 100 year picture science claims the sky is falling.. and what do you dummies do? Blame God and Christianity when too many people wake up from the BS and want something real to replace the money grubbing science that puts hippies into a tizzy.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Solar irradiance
It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

By all accounts these were very minor changes in solar output.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

citation please..

• Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

  
  
  citation please, what method of recording solar out put was avaible to us in 1750? is it as accurate as the deep space sun probes we have recording the sun now? or the equipment used in 1950 when this source says we first started measuring the suns energy output:
  http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm
  
  

• If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere.
  

• Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere.

You and your 'nasa guys' do know "heat" does not travel through a vacuum right? light does but not in the form of heat, but in the form of light waves which contain radiant heat. so in the upper atmosphere where there isn't any atmosphere or very little of it measurring 'heat' is pointless. Heat needs 'air' to be detectable, as in Measurable heat is the differential between the convective and radiant transfer, so the temp of an object is determined when the rate of heat transfer is zero.
http://www.new-learn.info/packages/clear.../temp.html

So in the upper atmosphere where the air is thin even though you have full unobstructed line of site to the sun's complete energy, the temp is and always been very low Because there is little to no air to facilitate the transfer of heat from it's radiant source.

So to say "you would expect to see increased temps in the upper atmosphere due to increased solar activity, is to not understand how heat is friggen measured or transferred in a form that we can relate to a temp.

So beg you pardon when I ask for a citation, because your 'nasa' article seems to be falling flat on high school science

That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

You mean Air, unlocks the radiant heat potential in a beam from the sun, and can be measured as heat... Well duh?!?!

Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases

They can, but not without stratospheric cooling which is what we have.

Why must we have thousands of years of information of the suns energy output?

Because sun cycles last for centuries. If you do not have thousand of years to set a base line how can you see the pattern?

What you guys fail to understand is that "Science" for the last idk 500+ years supports solar out put s being the reason for global warming and or cooling. It wasn't till the mid 1990's did several people in the government devise a way to make money with this "The sky is falling" junk science.

I can remember just a few years ago you could still find all sorts of information on solar output AND The Earth's ORBIT that explained in great detail global climate change. It's all gone now. It seems what is left is in old encyclopedias.. Maybe trump will bring back the truth.

All "TSIF-ers" "The Sky is Fallingers" have done is shown the climate is not static.. Well no duh.. (for most of us we already knew this) for those who don't, they think their carbon credits will save them.

Hey Retards (TSIF-ers) IF Carbon in the air is the problem then the only solution is a global population reduction of 2/3rds. So go home and Kill the first two people you see let the 3rd one live and repeat till everyone has gone through your process.

Otherwise who are you to tell anyone in a 3rd world country going through an industrial age of their own, that they must go backwards social so you can have all the things green house gas has done for you.

---

You guys are all f-ing morons..

Do you know where or what the 'big fix is for global climate change?'

Carbon credits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

It is a tax Clinton was going to put in place to charge you bleeding heart dummies too dee da dee to know in order for one to claim climate change based on carbon emissions, one must account for 1000s years of solar output (how much heat/light the sun produces ) in relation to how much the planet absorbs. We MAYBE have 100 years of data. So with 100 year picture science claims the sky is falling.. and what do you dummies do? Blame God and Christianity when too many people wake up from the BS and want something real to replace the money grubbing science that puts hippies into a tizzy.

Calls people fucking morons.  Thinks we only have 100 years of data.

At this point I can only assume you're just trying to out-stupid yourself at every turn.  The truly amazing thing, however, is how successful you are at it.

essentily 100 years is being way generous. 1950 is when we seriously started identified and started accurate recording the data points we now use. The fact that you think any different, and chose to speak without checking MAKES the moron I said you where.

http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

The link above is a complete history of science surrounding climate change. While I do not support it's final conclusion as the article does not take into consideration the data points that would ultimately affect climate rendered by a "3d huluhoop effect the earth's orbit would have in conjunction with solar output, I believe the article does indeed correctly follow how climate change via green house gas verse solar sunspots cycles would have..

Again, I am saying solar out put in conjunction with orbit over century long cycles determines climate (As did the last 500 years of science) this article maps out sunspots effect out a particular type of solar output/cosmic rays. But the article does accurately describe how and when our knowledge of climate change data was and is gathered.

So 1950 sport that means with 67 years of data youre people claim the sky is falling, and because I am not in a panic makes me the less credible??!?! Again the Sky is falling junk started in the late 90's AND inorder for to believe this bunk you have to ignore over 500 years of solar science and observation, even several mini Iceages with in the last 3 or 400 years, all of which is completely contrary to what your sky is falling doctrine tells you...

You know what you douche bags had you go for the last 10 years or so. give it a rest and let the adults run the world again. Maybe next time you all can do something with aliens or 'alien credits.' Some special tax that will help those who pay it avoid being probed