I was talking about how much energy from the Sun reaches the Earth. The geothermal heat flux is about 0.087 Watts/square meter compared to about 340 W/m^2 from the incoming solar radiation. Geothermal heat flow.
Of course these volcanoes are under the ice sheet, not under the ocean. And regardless there aren't enough volcanoes in the ocean to significantly affect sea temperatures (except very locally around the volcano). The total geothermal heat flux is 1/10,000 of the energy coming in from the Sun so the effect is minuscule.
Actually there is far more wealth and power in the fossil fuel industries that prefer to ignore AGW. I can't imagine that if some scientists had a serious challenge to the current climate theory they wouldn't be throwing money at them to bring the information to the fore.
The amount of CO2 added by industry is very small compared to natural releases, about 5% according to the IPCC website. If you increase the temperature of the ocean naturally (increases in volcanic activity, for example), the water temperature increases, the dissociation constant of water increases, the pH drops, and more CO2 is discharged into the air, which affects the CO2 mass balance equation you describe (as well as increasing the discharge of methane and other dissolved gases as it is well known gaseous solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature for most gases).
Do not trivialize the scientific method by declaring the cause defended by another position noble and just. Yes, reduce pollution, but always question and be willing to be questioned.
I think you're confusing the annual natural cycle of variation in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere with the year to year increase in the average level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a little less than half the total CO2 emitted by human activity. Most of the rest is being absorbed into the oceans.
It is well known that gaseous solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature. But it is also well known that the dissolved gas concentration in a liquid is proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above it (Henry's law). So far the increase in concentration in the atmosphere is beating out the effects of increasing ocean temperature and the volume of dissolved CO2 in the oceans continues to increase.
Volcanic activity has almost zero effect on the ocean temperatures (except very locally)
I notice how global warming alarmist claim that the basis for climate change is very well understood. Then we see new surprises like this that change the equation. All those claims about how good our global warming models are, yet none of them factored in what may be happening right now under those ice sheets. Not to say AGW doesn't exist, but don't be so darn sure you've got it all figured out. Listen to the critics, some of them actually have good points but you'd rather dismiss them all based on those that don't.
What is "happening right now under those ice sheets" has essentially zero effect on climate models. The total geothermal energy coming out of the Earth is about 1/10,000 of the energy we get from the Sun and there's no indication that the geothermal heat flux has changed significantly in the recent past.
Ice sheets are sitting on the land. The remnants of ice sheets floating on the ocean are called ice shelves.
I don't know how much energy an individual seamount gives off but all the volcanoes and other geothermal features on the Earth emit about 1/10,000 as much energy the Sun does. That's not enough to have any effect on AGW. And there is no evidence that the level of geothermal activity has changed significantly in the recent past.
Volcanoes can have local effects of course and those under the ice sheet may melt enough ice to destabilize the ice sheet locally but the effects of global warming are melting ice everywhere regardless of whether there's a volcano involved or not.
I also know that any single eruption of a volcano dwarfs our contribution to CO2 output from all nations put together.
You know wrong. It is well known that all volcanic eruptions taken together emit less than 1% as much CO2 as humans per year. The biggest eruption of the past 100 years, Pinatubo in 1991 emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2. Total volcanic emissions per year are around 250 million tonnes per year. Human emissions are on the order of 30 billion tonnes per year.
Let alone that science isn't done by consensus, It's done by repeatable testing and validation of theory.
You are right that science isn't done by consensus. Consensus occurs in science when a particular point is settled enough that scientists would be a wasting their time to continue contesting it.
Unfortunately, even if AGW turns out to be an immediate existential threat to humanity, the politicians and other shysters have driven it's credibility so far underground that the name had to be changed twice(global cooling -> global warming -> climate change).
"Global cooling" was never really a thing. It got some attention in the 1970s but even then a survey of the literature from 1965 to 1979 found over 6 times as many papers on global warming as on global cooling.
"Climate change" is a term that has been around since at least the 1950s. In 1956 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
So nothing has really changed, just different things get emphasized at different time.
And the continued exaggerations and FUD are taking it past the point where for many people, an unwashed hobo yelling about martians on a street corner while wearing a placard saying 'the end is near' is more credible.
I see exaggerations and FUD from climate science deniers about what climate scientists have said and even some of that from some people who accept what climate science is saying but I've seen very little exaggeration or FUD from actual climate scientists who are usually pretty careful about what they say.
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
Of course, it's meaningless to begin with. "Change" is what the climate DOES, always has, always will. The entire Gore-ful panic is designed to separate the people from their money and to allow the politicians to fun things forever.
And how is it that you know that climate has changed in the past. Do you really believe the scientists who told you this? They are the same scientists who you don't believe when they tell you that AGW is a problem. Are you just going to cherry pick based on what you want to believe?
I can relate to this. I wiped out the production database for our ERP system when I was trying to create a copy of it. Fortunately I had good backups and was able to restore the DB with minimal loses but it took all day (this was back in 1997 and the computer wasn't particularly fast, a SparcServer 1000 with 2 CPUs and 500 MB of RAM). In my case I wasn't fired and retired from the job last year after 31 years.
If cancer research is affected by incidents like this, what's to say that climate science isn't similarly affected?
Perhaps but when I hear about incidents like this it seems like it nearly always involves the medical field or something like sociology or psychology, seldom the harder sciences. When I hear about it in climate science it usually seems to be the contrarians who are the ones being called out.
Coincidentally there is a new paper in Nature that found an increase in photosynthesis of 31% +/- 5% in the 20th century (and I presume into the 21st).
Here are press releases from the institutions of two of the researchers:
The Carnegie Science press release has the following paragraph which supports my contention that we can't grow enough plants fast enough to fix the problem:
“It may be tempting to interpret these results as evidence that Earth’s dynamics are responding in a way that will naturally stabilize CO2 concentrations and climate,” Berry added. “But the real message is that the increase in photosynthesis has not been large enough to compensate for the burning of fossil fuels. Nature’s brakes are not up to the job. So now it’s up to us to figure out how to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”
No there won't be 70 feet of sea level rise this century. Most likely it will be between 3 and 5 feet this century but it could be more if there is a catastrophic collapse of some of the ice sheets on Antarctica or Greenland, maybe 10 feet. Even 3 feet will cause its problems particularly in southern Florida and along the Gulf Coast.
But like I said the last time CO2 was over 400 ppm sea level was over 70 feet higher and that may be unstoppable in the long run.
AGW is not a proven condition in the real world. Selectively run experiments in isolated labs that claim AGW to be a real thing aren't legitimate for claims of open air,
A study from 2000 to 2010 measured the changing forcing of CO2 using spectrometers from the ground in the open air. Here is the abstract:
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 +/- 0.19 W/m^2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of +/- 0.06 W/m^2 per decade and +/- 0.07W/m^2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W/m^2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
The dishonest climate change scam's scientists and sheepish laymen alike have another problem to sort out: "NOAA’s GHCN systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs."
There's a temperature record from BEST. Maybe you've heard of them. They use every single temperature record they can get their hands on, that's over 39,000 temperature stations. They don't exclude anything with usable data. And yet their findings are substantially the same as NOAA's GHCN. Even if you did the opposite of what you accuse NOAA of doing you still wouldn't find much difference as long as you picked a statistically valid selection of stations.
(Previous post with the quoting fixed up and missing text added.)
I thought water vapors called simply as clouds mostly influence greenhouse effect.
Water vapor and clouds are two different things when it comes to climate effects. You have to consider them separately. There is of course a relationship between water vapor and clouds as either one can become the other as atmospheric conditions change but their effects are not the same.
Anyone who believes that 25,000 terawatyears energy that the Earth gets from our star Sun annually, can be even slightly affected by humanity's output of 25 terawatyears annually (burning oil, coal and nuclear fuel), has not properly studied mathematics, biology and physics.
Of course the amount of heat produced by humans as you note is of practically no consequence. No one is claiming that. It's water vapor and CO2 and other greenhouse gases slowing down the loss of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth after it absorbs energy from the visible light from the Sun that is causing the heating.
It becomes clear that your climate science denialism is driven by your fear of possible economic consequences from responding to the problem more than any understanding of science. You also ought to consider the possible economic consequences if the climate scientists are right.
Global warming happens, no doubt about that, like global cooling. Every day and night. By some 15-20 degrees of Celsium. Where are climate fear-mongers explaining how that is possible?
Cute. The obvious answer is the Sun heats the day side of the planet and on the night side energy is being lost to the black sky. The energy flux is net positive on the day side and net negative on the night side. But that is a cycle that's been going on for the whole 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence and has never been a cause of climate change. For individual places on Earth it varies seasonally but repeats year after year and on a long term basis (tens of thousands of years) it varies due to the Milankovitch cycles but when you're talking about a climatologically significant period (30 years) it has essentially no effect.
I thought water vapors called simply as clouds mostly influence greenhouse effect.
Anyone who believes that 25,000 terawatyears energy that the Earth gets from our star Sun annually, can be even slightly affected by humanity's output of 25 terawatyears annually (burning oil, coal and nuclear fuel), has not properly studied mathematics, biology and physics.
Of course the amount of heat produced by humans as you note is of practically no consequence. No one is claiming that. It's water vapor and CO2 and other greenhouse gases slowing down the loss of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth after it absorbs energy from the visible light from the Sun that is causing the heating.
It becomes clear that your climate science denialism is driven by your fear of possible economic consequences from responding to the problem more than any understanding of science. You also ought to consider the possible economic consequences if the climate scientists are right.
Global warming happens, no doubt about that, like global cooling. Every day and night. By some 15-20 degrees of Celsium. Where are climate fear-mongers explaining how that is possible?
Cute. The obvious answer is the Sun heats the day side of the planet and on the night side energy is being lost to the black sky. But that is a cycle that's been going on for the whole 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence and has never been a cause of climate change. For individual places on Earth it varies seasonally but repeats year after year and on a long term basis (tens of thousands of years) it varies due to the Milankovitch cycles but when you're talking about a climatologically significant period (30 years) it has essentially no effect.
The only solution to AGW that has a chance of working in the long run is to stop increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We could make all those ecosystems pristine and it wouldn't stop the increase, just slow it down a little.
I'm not saying that. Of course those are issues and they have impacts. I'm just saying that we can't grow plants fast enough to keep up with the CO2 we are producing by burning ancient plant residue. Even if we reforest the rain forests and take care of those other things you mentioned it would just barely put a dent in the problem.
Hotter sun plus normal fluctuations in the climate equal kill all humans to save the planet.
I thought that, "All Scientists" said that the Sun had nothing to do with climate change and this is all due to humans?
Then you weren't paying close enough attention to what they have actually said. That is that in the ~200 years this current climate change has been going on the Sun has not changed enough to be a major factor. But maybe that's to complicated for you to grasp.
The lack of building nuclear power plants has as much to do with economics as it does with opposition to nuclear power. I'm not against nuclear power but I am against paying more for my power because of nuclear power when there are less expensive options. Ask the people in Georgia and South Carolina who are already paying higher electric bills to help pay for the nuclear plants they are building.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if gerrymandering wasn't a thing.
I was talking about how much energy from the Sun reaches the Earth. The geothermal heat flux is about 0.087 Watts/square meter compared to about 340 W/m^2 from the incoming solar radiation. Geothermal heat flow.
Of course those numbers are for the mass of the CO2, but thanks for your concern.
Of course these volcanoes are under the ice sheet, not under the ocean. And regardless there aren't enough volcanoes in the ocean to significantly affect sea temperatures (except very locally around the volcano). The total geothermal heat flux is 1/10,000 of the energy coming in from the Sun so the effect is minuscule.
Actually there is far more wealth and power in the fossil fuel industries that prefer to ignore AGW. I can't imagine that if some scientists had a serious challenge to the current climate theory they wouldn't be throwing money at them to bring the information to the fore.
The amount of CO2 added by industry is very small compared to natural releases, about 5% according to the IPCC website. If you increase the temperature of the ocean naturally (increases in volcanic activity, for example), the water temperature increases, the dissociation constant of water increases, the pH drops, and more CO2 is discharged into the air, which affects the CO2 mass balance equation you describe (as well as increasing the discharge of methane and other dissolved gases as it is well known gaseous solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature for most gases).
Do not trivialize the scientific method by declaring the cause defended by another position noble and just. Yes, reduce pollution, but always question and be willing to be questioned.
I think you're confusing the annual natural cycle of variation in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere with the year to year increase in the average level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a little less than half the total CO2 emitted by human activity. Most of the rest is being absorbed into the oceans.
It is well known that gaseous solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature. But it is also well known that the dissolved gas concentration in a liquid is proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above it (Henry's law). So far the increase in concentration in the atmosphere is beating out the effects of increasing ocean temperature and the volume of dissolved CO2 in the oceans continues to increase.
Volcanic activity has almost zero effect on the ocean temperatures (except very locally)
I notice how global warming alarmist claim that the basis for climate change is very well understood. Then we see new surprises like this that change the equation. All those claims about how good our global warming models are, yet none of them factored in what may be happening right now under those ice sheets. Not to say AGW doesn't exist, but don't be so darn sure you've got it all figured out. Listen to the critics, some of them actually have good points but you'd rather dismiss them all based on those that don't.
What is "happening right now under those ice sheets" has essentially zero effect on climate models. The total geothermal energy coming out of the Earth is about 1/10,000 of the energy we get from the Sun and there's no indication that the geothermal heat flux has changed significantly in the recent past.
Ice sheets are sitting on the land. The remnants of ice sheets floating on the ocean are called ice shelves.
I don't know how much energy an individual seamount gives off but all the volcanoes and other geothermal features on the Earth emit about 1/10,000 as much energy the Sun does. That's not enough to have any effect on AGW. And there is no evidence that the level of geothermal activity has changed significantly in the recent past.
Volcanoes can have local effects of course and those under the ice sheet may melt enough ice to destabilize the ice sheet locally but the effects of global warming are melting ice everywhere regardless of whether there's a volcano involved or not.
I also know that any single eruption of a volcano dwarfs our contribution to CO2 output from all nations put together.
You know wrong. It is well known that all volcanic eruptions taken together emit less than 1% as much CO2 as humans per year. The biggest eruption of the past 100 years, Pinatubo in 1991 emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2. Total volcanic emissions per year are around 250 million tonnes per year. Human emissions are on the order of 30 billion tonnes per year.
Let alone that science isn't done by consensus, It's done by repeatable testing and validation of theory.
You are right that science isn't done by consensus. Consensus occurs in science when a particular point is settled enough that scientists would be a wasting their time to continue contesting it.
Unfortunately, even if AGW turns out to be an immediate existential threat to humanity, the politicians and other shysters have driven it's credibility so far underground that the name had to be changed twice(global cooling -> global warming -> climate change).
"Global cooling" was never really a thing. It got some attention in the 1970s but even then a survey of the literature from 1965 to 1979 found over 6 times as many papers on global warming as on global cooling.
"Climate change" is a term that has been around since at least the 1950s. In 1956 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
So nothing has really changed, just different things get emphasized at different time.
And the continued exaggerations and FUD are taking it past the point where for many people, an unwashed hobo yelling about martians on a street corner while wearing a placard saying 'the end is near' is more credible.
I see exaggerations and FUD from climate science deniers about what climate scientists have said and even some of that from some people who accept what climate science is saying but I've seen very little exaggeration or FUD from actual climate scientists who are usually pretty careful about what they say.
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
Of course, it's meaningless to begin with. "Change" is what the climate DOES, always has, always will. The entire Gore-ful panic is designed to separate the people from their money and to allow the politicians to fun things forever.
And how is it that you know that climate has changed in the past. Do you really believe the scientists who told you this? They are the same scientists who you don't believe when they tell you that AGW is a problem. Are you just going to cherry pick based on what you want to believe?
I can relate to this. I wiped out the production database for our ERP system when I was trying to create a copy of it. Fortunately I had good backups and was able to restore the DB with minimal loses but it took all day (this was back in 1997 and the computer wasn't particularly fast, a SparcServer 1000 with 2 CPUs and 500 MB of RAM). In my case I wasn't fired and retired from the job last year after 31 years.
If cancer research is affected by incidents like this, what's to say that climate science isn't similarly affected?
Perhaps but when I hear about incidents like this it seems like it nearly always involves the medical field or something like sociology or psychology, seldom the harder sciences. When I hear about it in climate science it usually seems to be the contrarians who are the ones being called out.
Coincidentally there is a new paper in Nature that found an increase in photosynthesis of 31% +/- 5% in the 20th century (and I presume into the 21st).
Here are press releases from the institutions of two of the researchers:
From the University of California at Merced
From Carnegie Science
The Carnegie Science press release has the following paragraph which supports my contention that we can't grow enough plants fast enough to fix the problem:
“It may be tempting to interpret these results as evidence that Earth’s dynamics are responding in a way that will naturally stabilize CO2 concentrations and climate,” Berry added. “But the real message is that the increase in photosynthesis has not been large enough to compensate for the burning of fossil fuels. Nature’s brakes are not up to the job. So now it’s up to us to figure out how to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”
No there won't be 70 feet of sea level rise this century. Most likely it will be between 3 and 5 feet this century but it could be more if there is a catastrophic collapse of some of the ice sheets on Antarctica or Greenland, maybe 10 feet. Even 3 feet will cause its problems particularly in southern Florida and along the Gulf Coast.
But like I said the last time CO2 was over 400 ppm sea level was over 70 feet higher and that may be unstoppable in the long run.
AGW is not a proven condition in the real world. Selectively run experiments in isolated labs that claim AGW to be a real thing aren't legitimate for claims of open air,
A study from 2000 to 2010 measured the changing forcing of CO2 using spectrometers from the ground in the open air. Here is the abstract:
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 +/- 0.19 W/m^2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of +/- 0.06 W/m^2 per decade and +/- 0.07W/m^2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W/m^2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
And here is the PDF of the whole paper for your edification: Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
The dishonest climate change scam's scientists and sheepish laymen alike have another problem to sort out: "NOAA’s GHCN systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs."
There's a temperature record from BEST. Maybe you've heard of them. They use every single temperature record they can get their hands on, that's over 39,000 temperature stations. They don't exclude anything with usable data. And yet their findings are substantially the same as NOAA's GHCN. Even if you did the opposite of what you accuse NOAA of doing you still wouldn't find much difference as long as you picked a statistically valid selection of stations.
(Previous post with the quoting fixed up and missing text added.)
I thought water vapors called simply as clouds mostly influence greenhouse effect.
Water vapor and clouds are two different things when it comes to climate effects. You have to consider them separately. There is of course a relationship between water vapor and clouds as either one can become the other as atmospheric conditions change but their effects are not the same.
Anyone who believes that 25,000 terawatyears energy that the Earth gets from our star Sun annually, can be even slightly affected by humanity's output of 25 terawatyears annually (burning oil, coal and nuclear fuel), has not properly studied mathematics, biology and physics.
Of course the amount of heat produced by humans as you note is of practically no consequence. No one is claiming that. It's water vapor and CO2 and other greenhouse gases slowing down the loss of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth after it absorbs energy from the visible light from the Sun that is causing the heating.
It becomes clear that your climate science denialism is driven by your fear of possible economic consequences from responding to the problem more than any understanding of science. You also ought to consider the possible economic consequences if the climate scientists are right.
Global warming happens, no doubt about that, like global cooling. Every day and night. By some 15-20 degrees of Celsium. Where are climate fear-mongers explaining how that is possible?
Cute. The obvious answer is the Sun heats the day side of the planet and on the night side energy is being lost to the black sky. The energy flux is net positive on the day side and net negative on the night side. But that is a cycle that's been going on for the whole 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence and has never been a cause of climate change. For individual places on Earth it varies seasonally but repeats year after year and on a long term basis (tens of thousands of years) it varies due to the Milankovitch cycles but when you're talking about a climatologically significant period (30 years) it has essentially no effect.
I thought water vapors called simply as clouds mostly influence greenhouse effect.
Anyone who believes that 25,000 terawatyears energy that the Earth gets from our star Sun annually, can be even slightly affected by humanity's output of 25 terawatyears annually (burning oil, coal and nuclear fuel), has not properly studied mathematics, biology and physics.
Of course the amount of heat produced by humans as you note is of practically no consequence. No one is claiming that. It's water vapor and CO2 and other greenhouse gases slowing down the loss of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth after it absorbs energy from the visible light from the Sun that is causing the heating.
It becomes clear that your climate science denialism is driven by your fear of possible economic consequences from responding to the problem more than any understanding of science. You also ought to consider the possible economic consequences if the climate scientists are right.
Global warming happens, no doubt about that, like global cooling. Every day and night. By some 15-20 degrees of Celsium. Where are climate fear-mongers explaining how that is possible?
Cute. The obvious answer is the Sun heats the day side of the planet and on the night side energy is being lost to the black sky. But that is a cycle that's been going on for the whole 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence and has never been a cause of climate change. For individual places on Earth it varies seasonally but repeats year after year and on a long term basis (tens of thousands of years) it varies due to the Milankovitch cycles but when you're talking about a climatologically significant period (30 years) it has essentially no effect.
The only solution to AGW that has a chance of working in the long run is to stop increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We could make all those ecosystems pristine and it wouldn't stop the increase, just slow it down a little.
I'm not saying that. Of course those are issues and they have impacts. I'm just saying that we can't grow plants fast enough to keep up with the CO2 we are producing by burning ancient plant residue. Even if we reforest the rain forests and take care of those other things you mentioned it would just barely put a dent in the problem.
Sheesh! They never said that it couldn't be a factor, just that the current solar variation wasn't enough to be a major factor.
Hotter sun plus normal fluctuations in the climate equal kill all humans to save the planet.
I thought that, "All Scientists" said that the Sun had nothing to do with climate change and this is all due to humans?
Then you weren't paying close enough attention to what they have actually said. That is that in the ~200 years this current climate change has been going on the Sun has not changed enough to be a major factor. But maybe that's to complicated for you to grasp.
A 1950's Supreme Court decision ruled that Social Security is a government program, Congress can cancel the program at any time, and keep the money.
Of course if they did that they wouldn't keep their jobs come the next election.
The lack of building nuclear power plants has as much to do with economics as it does with opposition to nuclear power. I'm not against nuclear power but I am against paying more for my power because of nuclear power when there are less expensive options. Ask the people in Georgia and South Carolina who are already paying higher electric bills to help pay for the nuclear plants they are building.