Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action

Recommended Posts

Hi @pinkham13, big fan of your work. I do have a question for you: how do climate scientists benefit from a hysteria-fueled descent into global communism? Have they been promised leadership roles in the new world order? TIA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

Why you wouldn’t believe it if I did anyway. You’ll stick to Al Gore’s global warming climate alarmist propaganda won’t you. The green power outages in Cali illustrate the absurdity of eliminating fossil fuels.

How about the link from NASA themselves without the spin....

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

And some quotes to help...

According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.”

 

Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another grand minimum might have on global surface temperatures.2 These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth, and just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the grand minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded.

Some people have linked the Maunder Minimum’s temporary cooling effect to decreased solar activity, but that change was more likely influenced by increased volcanic activity and ocean circulation shifts.3

Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.“

 

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

Why you wouldn’t believe it if I did anyway. You’ll stick to Al Gore’s global warming climate alarmist propaganda won’t you. The green power outages in Cali illustrate the absurdity of eliminating fossil fuels.

Less sun spot activity coming but let’s go all in on solar. Ridiculous!

So the question is now will you believe it if I posted it directly from NASA?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

Yeah NASA says the global cooling is coming so you are pretty much arguing against them not me. The Al Gore scam is what it is. But I also appreciate the chat.

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-extremely-low-sunspot-counts-indicate-global-cooling-onset/

Is that what NASA says?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pinkham13 said:

Wrong! The techno tyrants censoring the internet to promote radical left wing socialist commie goals tried to memory hole the guy. Global warming is fake news and fake science according to Moore who was also past president of Greenpeace CA in addition to being a cofounder.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/03/17/greenpeace-and-google-disappear-dr-patrick-moore/

I literally posted his handwritten job application and Greenpeace’s response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

So from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/, a shocker...

Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.”

So they quoted NASA research I provided. Nobody cares about your ministry of truth. Just another technotyrant. I forgot you guys need communist news network cnn propaganda for it to be real news. Is NOAA acceptable or do they poop on that too?

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/sunspotssolar-cycle 
 

Shocker your tecnotyrant fact checker is wrong and the climate alarmist conspiracy theory is failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pinkham13 said:

So they quoted NASA research I provided. Nobody cares about your ministry of truth. Just another technotyrant. I forgot you guys need communist news network cnn propaganda for it to be real news. Is NOAA acceptable or do they poop on that too?

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/sunspotssolar-cycle 
 

Shocker your tecnotyrant fact checker is wrong and the climate alarmist conspiracy theory is failing.

Yes they did, and spun it. 

Any thoughts on the actual NASA link I provided which you conveniently ignored.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

So they quoted NASA research I provided. Nobody cares about your ministry of truth. Just another technotyrant. I forgot you guys need communist news network cnn propaganda for it to be real news. Is NOAA acceptable or do they poop on that too?

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/sunspotssolar-cycle 
 

Shocker your tecnotyrant fact checker is wrong and the climate alarmist conspiracy theory is failing.

Nobody is quoting cnn...and calling them communist is laughable too.  Also...you used a terrible source who opined things that NASA didn't actually say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

What about this link from NASA as well  supporting my thesishttps://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

Sorry you fell for the scam man

Bro did you even read what you posted?  Please quote from that article where it says that the earth is cooling due to that fact and that climate change is a hoax. No one is arguing the Sun is fluctuating.  

So now that I answered your question again, how about answering mine that you have avoided now multiple times.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Bro did you even read what you posted?  Please quote from that article where it says that the earth is cooling due to that fact and that climate change is a hoax. No one is arguing the Sun is fluctuating.  

So now that I answered your question again, how about answering mine that you have avoided now multiple times.   

I saw it and have read it before it talks about low sun spots. It mostly confirms what I am saying. You are behind on the three NASA links I posted since.

Edited by pinkham13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Bro did you even read what you posted?  Please quote from that article where it says that the earth is cooling due to that fact and that climate change is a hoax. No one is arguing the Sun is fluctuating.  

So now that I answered your question again, how about answering mine that you have avoided now multiple times.   

With all due respect are you even looking at the graph showing the coming dip in temps. There is no global warming from man on cyclical temperature change due to sunspot activity. You don’t have to be very smart to get that out of the links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheriff Bart said:

:lmao: Like a school of white bass you guys are. 

Nice contribution. Others are posting links from NASA and such and you call it fishing. Move along please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

I saw it and have read it before it talks about low sun spots. It mostly confirms what I am saying. You are behind on the three NASA links I posted since.

Again, NO ONE is arguing that sun spots are real.  Not one of the actual NASA link you provided proves your point that climate change is a hoax. Let’s try this again....

Here’s what NASA says about the effects of the Sun Spots (which we ALL agree is happening)....

1 hour ago, dkp993 said:

Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another grand minimum might have on global surface temperatures.2 These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth, and just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the grand minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded.

Some people have linked the Maunder Minimum’s temporary cooling effect to decreased solar activity, but that change was more likely influenced by increased volcanic activity and ocean circulation shifts.3

Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.“

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

:lmao: Like a school of white bass you guys are. 

I wish he was just baiting, I’d sleep much better at night if I didn’t think he was being real.

*i sleep just fine, being dramatic for effect.  

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Again, NO ONE is arguing that sun spots are real.  Not one of the actual NASA link you provided proves your point that climate change is a hoax. Let’s try this again....

Here’s what NASA says about the effects of the Sun Spots (which we ALL agree is happening)....

 

Yes it does prove it. When everyone is screaming about the rising temperatures and climate disasters the NASA people are thinking we will have a grand solar minimum as a very likely outcome. This debunks the entire anthropgenous climate change BS and correctly assigns climate change to sunspot cycles. Case closed. We can all go back to working on things that aren’t socialism scams.

Edited by pinkham13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.“

 

1 minute ago, pinkham13 said:

Yes it does prove it. When everyone is screaming about the rising temperatures and climate disasters the NASA people are thinking we will have a grand solar minimum as a very likely outcome. This debunks the entire anthropgenous climate change BS and correctly assigns climate change to sunspot cycles. Case closed. We can all go back to working on things that aren’t socialism scams.

How do you completely continue to miss this summary sentence from the NASA link which goes against everything you typed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I wish he was just baiting, I’d sleep much better at night if I didn’t think he was being real.

*i sleep just fine, being dramatic for effect.  

You should be worried. If the world leaders are preparing for warming and we get a grand solar minimum we are all going to wish we had spent the money and time on the effects of the Muander minimum potential for reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dkp993 said:

 

How do you completely continue to miss this summary sentence from the NASA link which goes against everything you typed?

The summary sentence means nothin the science is what counts. And they are saying global coolin with less sun. Perfect time to shut down all of our fossil fuels and baseload power. We can all freeze yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pinkham13 said:

The summary sentence means nothin the science is what counts. And they are saying global coolin with less sun. Perfect time to shut down all of our fossil fuels and baseload power. We can all freeze yay!

So what you’re trying to say here is they choose to write an entire article about the science they did then lie about human caused climate change when referencing the conclusion.  Wow. That’s impressive dude.  Have a good night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

So what you’re trying to say here is they choose to write an entire article about the science they did then lie about human caused climate change when referencing the conclusion.  Wow. That’s impressive dude.  Have a good night. 

The science they wrote about emphatically states that less sun spot activity is coming Others are going so far to say it’s a grand solar minimum. How hard is that to understand? Global cooling is coming not warming. But good night to you too my man. All good. 

Edited by pinkham13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dkp993 said:
 

Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.“

 

3 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

The science they wrote about emphatically states that less sun spot activity is coming Others are going so far to say it’s a grand solar minimum. How hard is that to understand? Global cooling is coming not warming. But good night to you too my man. All good. 

Bolded, highlighted and underlined to help.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

 

Bolded, highlighted and underlined to help.  

But others disagree. It’s often difficult to pinpoint climate and weather outcomes isn’t it? It would be just like the government to get it completely bass ackwards wouldn’t it? The cycles point to 20-50 years of cold as a potential outcome. Just like football outliers exist and are unpredictable.

Thank you for the discussion.

Edited by pinkham13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pinkham13 said:

But others disagree. It’s often difficult to pinpoint climate and weather outcomes isn’t it? It would be just like the government to get it completely bass ackwards wouldn’t it? The cycles point to 20-50 years of cold as a potential outcome. Just like football outliers exist and are unpredictable.

Thank you for the discussion.

We are not talking about “others”.  There are others who think the world is flat 🤷‍♂️.  

You referenced this article 4/5 times (but not the actual article, someone’s opinion of the article) and now you’re picking and choosing what you want to hear from them, that’s the issue.  That is NASA’s conclusion not someone else’s opinion.  They concluded that the effect on human-caused warming would be brief an minimal.  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

We are not talking about “others”.  There are others who think the world is flat 🤷‍♂️.  

You referenced this article 4/5 times (but not the actual article, someone’s opinion of the article) and now you’re picking and choosing what you want to hear from them, that’s the issue.  That is NASA’s conclusion not someone else’s opinion.  They concluded that the effect on human-caused warming would be brief an minimal.  

You want another link from NASA? You gonna love this one. They say CO2 is a coolant!

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Yeah in the 70s it was cooling then it was warming. I think we’re back to cooling now lol! That’s Crap shoot science. We gonna make it past 12 years despite the alarmist hysteria bro.
 

I posted many other links and opinions. You just don’t agree with them. Betting on the climate changing and why it is changing is like betting on football you don’t know if you will be correct in either situation.

Bonus link bro Finnish study debunks IPCC anthropogenic climate change scaremongering theory

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

 

Edited by pinkham13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PhantomJB said:

Yes it is. That factor is included in the definition of LCOE (levelized cost of electricity), which takes into account the "capacity factor" (i.e. percentage of time they are up and running). LCOE also includes the cost of capital and fuel and transportation costs.

The only thing not factored in to LCOE is the environmental costs. So all the comparative fossil fuel costs actually should be much higher.

Try again. You're sinking fast but you can use your lifeline if you want...

"Think of all the birds - chicken is expensive. Mmmmm KFC"*

*not an actual quote from an actual president, yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, msommer said:

"Think of all the birds - chicken is expensive. Mmmmm KFC"*

*not an actual quote from an actual president, yet

Bird brain humor for a brain dead hoax. Cutting fossil fuels right on time for a major cooling. NASA says CO2 a coolant not the Prez. Any reason take an unwarranted shot at a republican is the norm for you though.

https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/

 

Edited by pinkham13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pinkham13 said:

The science they wrote about emphatically states that less sun spot activity is coming Others are going so far to say it’s a grand solar minimum. How hard is that to understand? Global cooling is coming not warming. But good night to you too my man. All good. 

Because they have explicitly stated that it wont necessarily lead to global cooling. You are making conclusions yourself that NASA isn't making and you are ignoring their actual conclusions.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pinkham13 said:

You want another link from NASA? You gonna love this one. They say CO2 is a coolant!

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Yeah in the 70s it was cooling then it was warming. I think we’re back to cooling now lol! That’s Crap shoot science. We gonna make it past 12 years despite the alarmist hysteria bro.
 

I posted many other links and opinions. You just don’t agree with them. Betting on the climate changing and why it is changing is like betting on football you don’t know if you will be correct in either situation.

Bonus link bro Finnish study debunks IPCC anthropogenic climate change scaremongering theory

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

 

The Finnish study you site would not be "accepted as a bachelor thesis", not to mention a peer-reviewed science journal.

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather more respect and just admit you don't care because you will be dead when it happens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, hammerva said:

I would rather more respect and just admit you don't care because you will be dead when it happens.

 

That's the thing...why make up all the crazy shifting conspiracy theories.  Just stand up and say i don't give a rat's a$$

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.