/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11288660
Very retarded way of shifting goalposts. What you would/should have said if your IQ was higher than 70 is that higher temperatures means drier vegetation, and drier vegetation increases fire risk.

To address your "point", climate change is caused by the ever-changing Solar Constant (pic related), that we cannot and never will control. Whether we have an effect on the temperature trend of our planet or not is incredibly hard to determine scientifically.
Should we generally try to reduce our impact on our planet? Yes, of course, but whoever tries to sell you the climate emergency assuming that all climate change is man made is trying to sell you something or to get your vote.

>>11000315
>Do you deny that the sun, procession, and other unknown factors have an effect?
I do not deny that the sun has an effect. However, when you compare variations and climate sensitivity (i. e. how strongly something affects the climate), you quickly realize that the effect of carbon dioxide is much higher. A factor of 2 in our CO2 concentration corresponds to a change in solar "brightness" of 2%. (https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005776))
If you look at the variation of the solar constant (solar power density that arrives here), it only changed by 0.2% (see picrelated). In the meantime we had an increase of ~50%. Therefore, the increase in CO2 has an effect which is 5 times larger than the maximum effect, solar irradiance could have had.

>>11000022
> [ ] understood greenhouse effect
> [x] "it's only 0.4%"

Doubling or halving the value of CO2 in our atmosphere has roughly the same effect as a 2% variation in the solar energy output. However, the solar constant has been constant to the level of a few per mill.
We went from 270ppm to over 400 ppm, which is a factor of 1.5.
In a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'll find that the effect of human CO2 output on our climate is therefore a factor ~7.5 higher than the variation of the brightness of the sun (even overestimating the increase of the solar brightness by taking 0.2%).
Please be a bit more factual, this is /sci/, not /b/