Quote:

---

boomer q said:
incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? havent you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea

---

This is one of the most ridiculuous statements I've heard in a month, as long as I'm handing out awards.

Quote:

---

boomer q said:
incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? havent you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea

---

Ahh, allow me to actually address the most ridiculous statement of the month. I don't understand how it is implied that someone who takes psychadelics is suspossed to believe in "climate change", such as it is being referred to as. I say this as someone who took a nice hit of acid and climbed a hill in the unglaciated area of Wisconsin. I then sat at the top, with my legs dangling over the edge of a limestone bluff, above the tree tops below, and gazed out over the Wisconsin River Valley. The unglaciated area is in Southwestern Wisconsin, and its interesting because all of the land in every direction surrounding the unglaciated area was paved pretty flat by glaciers. This is why it exists in its state of hills and trees and pristine environment. Of course, once the glaciers further up North began to melt, all of that water came through the Wisconsin River, forming the valley.

From this vantage point, so magnificently soaring on acid, I could actually sense the changes that had occured over very long amounts of time. I could actually feel exactly how it all happened, the glacial water easing through and forming the terrain, down to the last detail, because all of that information exists in the present moment, in those details; the big picture completely visible through the pure magic of acid.

It was definitely one of the greatest experiences I've had. After personally witnessing first-hand the end of the last Ice Age, I think a tripper would feel pretty good sitting there, one with nature, observing a glacier fall into the sea. I've seen its melted remains sweep through the land, at least.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
Its pretty conclusive that the warming and cooling of the earth is resultant of the Sun's output of energy more than anything. Humans might be putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere; however, there is a point at which you could dump twice as much of it into the atmosphere and it still would not produce any real effect as far as cooling is concerned. Phred covered this in his first couple of posts in this thread. Go read them.

---

Quote:

---

Yossarian22 said:
PS: Did I mention that it's snowing outside therefore global warming has to be false? I mean, it's not as if scientists are predicting a vast and complex destabilization of weather patterns; clearly, global warming means that the entire Earth is going to uniformly increase in temperature.

---

Quote:

---

Yossarian22 said:
Wow, the sun you say? Good lord, it looks like you've shown all those fancy pants scientists. Who woulda thunk that all those advanced climatological predictions and models should have taken into account solar energy and basic chemistry?

---

Quote:

---

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Scientists, industry leaders and environmentalists have argued for years whether humans have contributed to global warming, and to what extent. The average surface temperature around the globe has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880. Some scientists say the increase could be part of natural climate cycles. Others argue that greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and industry are largely to blame.

Willson said the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods.

---

I'm doing my own research into your amusing statement, of course, but, since you're the one making the claim, its your responsibility to back it up. Please do.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
So, if it obviously isn't CO2 that is making the difference, then what is it?

---

Quote:

---

My point is pretty simple, yes, but that doesn't mean it has been underestimated.

---

Quote:

---

My point is that the Sun is responsible for it all and any other factor plays no real role in climate change.

---

Quote:

---

Did you have anything of substance to address my point with, instead of this logical fallacy you have presented?

---

Quote:

---

boomer q said:
incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? havent you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea

---

Quote:

---

Yossarian22 said:
When did I say it wasn't the CO2? It's also caused by other greenhouse gases, too, but CO2 certainly plays a large part.

---

Quote:

---

What do you mean "underestimated"? The point is that it's pure craziness to think that modern science is unable to take into account such an elementary idea. The sun hypothesis has been studied and debunked.

---

It isn't accounting for the clear role the Sun has in climate change, especially since we should never forget that it is the heater for this planet, and the only reason there is a climate in the first place.

Some sun hypotheses may have been debunked, but not what I'm proposing, based upon various sets of information, which I believe there is an opportunity later to elaborate upon.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that the Sun is responsible for it all and any other factor plays no real role in climate change.

---

And my point is you're entirely wrong. Of course the sun's important, but there haven't been any changes that could explain the unprecedented rise in global temperatures. Here's one link debunking that hypothesis.

---

Its important to stress the context of my statement, which is made from a perspective that isn't so set within the course of years or decades, or any preconception of the global warming debate. Clearly other factors, such as our own emissions and the emissions of volcanoes, play an observable role in climate change. My point is that the Sun is the Alpha and the Omega of the climate, and its subsequent change. I'm stating that, ultimately, all that matters is the Sun regarding this, and I'm even prepared to place on the table that the course of human civilization itself has been played out due to the Sun's output, inevitably bringing humans to the point that they would begin emitting greenhouse gases, thus demonstrating the role the Sun has in climate change. I've been waiting to make a post about the Sun's role in human civilization anyways.

Do you want my analysis? Its seemed pretty conclusive that the Sun (namely, the reduction/absence of sunspots), coupled with volcanic activity, is pretty clearly responsible for global cooling. Why then, as the article you cited points to, did the temperature increase from 1980 to 2000, while the amount of sunspots decreased? Here's a graph that shows this:







It seems pretty conclusive that sunspot/volcanic activity data corresponds fairly well with the global temperature, up until the last section of the last century, and I believe that it also corresponds fairly well for the last four centuries and possibly beyond, including the Maunder Minimum, and this seems to be generally accepted.

Before I propose my answer to the 1980-2000 matter, let's look at another graph which came into play much earlier in this thread:







The number of sunspots has been decreasing, and it peaked in 1998. It is now on a downslope until 2010. Is it really any wonder why the average global mean temperature has started dropping since 1998? Ahh, but why didn't it drop as the sunspots started decreasing from 1980 to about 1998? Greenhouse gases. I'm not denying the role humans have played in this. What has happened is that they have insulated the Earth so that the temperature has no longer corresponded with the amount of sunspots, as it has historically. Of course, as the actual heat source for the Earth, the Sun, is not giving us as much energy, that temperature will eventually begin to drop in accordance with it - insulation doesn't hold heat in forever.

If anything, I think it remains to be seen that human beings are helped by this, as periods of cooling produce much more hardship for humanity than periods of warmth do.

Quote:

---

I presented no logical fallacy- and don't say "appeal to authority"(it's only a fallacy when it's an appeal to false authority).

---

This isn't true. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The ideas themselves are to support themselves. Authority might assist in developing some knowledge, but its always a fallacy because the ideas are not valid simply due to the credibility of the source.

Quote:

---

Science is a self-correcting process; certainly, it makes mistakes and it's not perfect, but every scientific idea that becomes a matter of consensus has been rigorously tested, debated, and exposed to criticism worldwide.

---

Indubiantly.

Quote:

---

There are hundreds of thousands of people who've studied climatology for decades and understand the science more intimately than any of us here could possibly hope to. While studies and technological advances have altered the details of our understanding of climate change, it hasn't altered the core theory; in fact, the library of climatological research has confirmed the existence of global warming many times over.

---

Great. I've never denied the fact that the temperature of this planet has, at times, gotten warmer, nor that humans have some role in that process.

Quote:

---

To say "nope, the scientific community is wrong" and to present such scant and superficial evidence is not just arrogant, but stupid. Do you really think none of those scientists asked themselves "maybe we should look at the sun"?

---

Nope, I don't think that any of these scientists have not asked themselves that.

Quote:

---

The truth is, there is no controversy over anthropogenic climate change in the scientific community.

---

Great. I don't see how this contradicts anything I have to say on the matter.

Quote:

---

And you've bought it hook, line and sinker. Congratulations, you're spouting Exxon's disinformation. You've been used.

---

It'd be better if you were being facetious, because I see no way in which I'm being used by anyone in forming my own opinions on the matter. I don't know how many people share my views on the matter, but most of my viewpoint is based on the solid, underestimated role that the Sun has in every aspect of this planet. Humans emitting greenhouse gases might play some role but not in the context in which I was referring to earlier, which is the sense that the Sun is responsible for all warming and cooling, since it is the source of energy, life, and all that jazz....

Quote:

---

"A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said."

---

Quote:

---

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

---

Quote:

---

"Solar cycles led to a small increase of 0.07% in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is far too small to contribute significantly to global warming."

---

Quote:

---

boomer q said:
incidentally, how is your name luvdemshrooms, and you deny global warming? haven't you learned anything about how to be one with nature from shrooms? you should take a large dose and go watch a glacier fall into the sea

---