Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, June 15, 2019

Renee Parsons: Even before the UN-initiated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed in 1988, the assumption was that carbon dioxide was the principle greenhouse gas and that CO2 drives rising climate temperatures. There is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is the true external force driving Earth's energy and climate system in our Sun-centered solar system. Secondly, water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect with CO2 contributing 3.6%. Over the past fifteen years, air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar. The IPCC's exclusion of the Sun from consideration can only be seen as a deliberate thwarting of a basic fundamental law of science, a process which assures a free inquiry based on reason and evidence.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

A Solar Minimum (SM) is a periodic 11 year solar cycle normally manifesting a weak magnetic field with increased radiation and cosmic rays while exhibiting decreased sunspot activity that, in turn, decreases planetary temperatures. Today's solar cycle is referred to as the Grand Minimum which, according to NOAA, predicts reductions from the typical 140 – 220 sunspots per solar cycle to 95 – 130 sunspots. Numerous peer-reviewed ice core studies confirm that CO2 lags behind temperature increases, initially by as much as 800 years, then 8,000 years and today about 14,000 years. Geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cycle with glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods lasting 15,000-20,000 years. Man-made contributions to co2 are less than what has been determined to be significant. However, elimination of CO2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Did man cause that? You just can't trust a lump of coal.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-15 10:09 AM | Reply

Watch the sunspot deniers line up like cattle to moo at the article.

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-15 10:12 AM | Reply

My God. Sun-spots have no effect on the weather.

Gettin' a rope. Gonna be a hangin'.

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-06-15 08:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Renee doesnt know what she is talking about, or she is intentionally trying to mislead.

Yes the climate on earth has changed in the past. Duh. The concern with the recent man made climate change is how rapid it is. If the predicted changes happened gradually over a million years there would be little to worry about. But they are going to happen over several centuries and cause large habitat changes.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2019-06-15 09:22 PM | Reply

I love this Monty Python French waiter "but it is wafer thin!" approach to denying the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

It would be like denying someone went on an acid trip, because for ibuprofen to dull the pain you take 800 milligrams, so how could less than 1/1000th of that amount of LSD have any effect?

See what I did there? It's called math. Turns out that's a thing.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-15 09:34 PM | Reply

The sun can affect climate? That can't be right. I'm sure I tried to make and then lost that argument.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-16 09:53 AM | Reply

With regard to global warming. The strongest effect is the eleven year solar cycle. The second strongest effect is water vapor (cloud cover). The third effect is CO2 and methane, control of mankind's contribution to that effect would still be beneficial.

I do not understand how bored one has to be to not understand these facts, but media hype corrodes good science.

#7 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-16 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No scientist ignores the affect of solar cycles or water vapor on climate. They just realize that solar output is cyclic and stable and we can't do anything about it.
Also water vapor is generated by heat, so the only variables we can control is CO2 and methane and particulate matter.

#8 | Posted by bored at 2019-06-16 11:11 AM | Reply

You can control the earth's temp? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-16 06:16 PM | Reply

I guess mortal man is more powerful than God.

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-17 09:56 AM | Reply

Well mortal man exists so yes.

#11 | Posted by bored at 2019-06-17 10:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

There is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is the true external force driving Earth's energy and climate system in our Sun-centered solar system.

False.

Secondly, water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect with CO2 contributing 3.6%.

C02 has more of an effect on warming, and a warmer atmosphere actually increases water vapor.

Over the past fifteen years, air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.

False. We've been hearing this from you conspiracy theorists for well over fifteen years.

A Solar Minimum (SM) is a periodic 11 year solar cycle

Yet the globe keeps warming through every solar minimum. Something else conspiracy theorists have been peddling over decades.

However, elimination of CO2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.

THEN WHY ARE WE STILL HAVING THIS SAME NONSENSE ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER AGAIN???

#12 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-06-17 01:51 PM | Reply

"However, elimination of CO2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet."

This is key. Even if CO2 isn't the driver of global warming, but there's a handy little thing that happens when you engineer for 0 CO2 emmissions; you curb all the heavy hydrocarbons (like methane) that have 1000s of times more greenhouse effect by mass.

#13 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-17 02:03 PM | Reply

Methane actually isn't much of a problem. Yes, it has a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2 but it bleeds out of the atmosphere in 10-12 years. It takes CO2 emissions more than 1000 years to bleed into space.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-17 02:17 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort