Since the sun can cause just as much "global warming" as greenhouse gases...?

Question

why is it that 3 billion years ago there was liquid water on earth? Geological records show the earth has maintained a somewhat consistent temperature for most of its life, and was actually warmer then it is today around 3 billion years ago. Yet at that time, the sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. This should have made all water on earth ice. Now the geological record indicates that large amounts of greenhouse gases are the reason for the sustained warmth. But that can't be true, since global warming deniers have made it clear that greenhouse gases don't have that much influence, especially when compared to the effect of the sun.

Not asked in science section, because I know the scientific answer.

The clear scientific answer is that greenhouse gases caused the earth to significantly heat up. But politically, there is lots of debate on this.

Answer 1

Some Simple Facts:
Yes, there is Global Warming. It has happened before and it will happen again. Example: Middle ages, the global warming was obviously caused by man then also.

The Ice caps have melted, on average, an insignificant amount, causing the sea level to rise an insignificant amount. I have heard claims that 40% of the ice caps are already gone. If that were true, the sea level would have risen 3 feet. Serious misinformation.

Man contributes only minimally to global warming. I have heard claims that 90% of Climate scientists say man outright caused the global warming. That is an outright lie. The figure is more like 10%. Maybe 90% percent believe that Man CONTRIBUTES BUT NOT CAUSES global warming. Misinformation.

Global warming is a political tool used to divert attention from Big Oils raping of America. It is the latest in a line of intentional distractions by politicians. As others have said the “flavor of the month”. What has your politician done about Big Oil. Probably nothing or misinformation.

Global warming is real but used by Alarmists by horrific exaggerations and careful misinformation. These Alarmists spout various facts and figures with little or no truth while denouncing anything that contradicts their views. I often think their actions remind me of psycho sports fans who freak out if you dare to say anything is wrong with their team.

There is good in the global warming debate. It will reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency. I don’t need lies and misinformation to get me to believe that.

Answer 2

Clearly this is what you're getting at:

"The clear scientific answer is that greenhouse gases caused the earth to significantly heat up. But politically, there is lots of debate on this."

The problem is that global warming is a scientific issue, not a political one. What we do about it is a political issue, but you have to understand the science first before forming an opinion on what our political course of action should be.

Unfortunately many people skip the step of understanding the science and go straight into the politics, which creates ridiculous conclusions such as "global warming is a liberal environazi hoax to create a climate change tax!". There needs to be some sort of widespread effort to educate people about the science behind global warming, because far too many simply don't understand it.

Answer 3

Well you forgot the Earth was still in a superheated state due to formation+collision with other proto-planets and was still in it's cool down phase so the heat was very possibly from the Eath itself.

You also don't seem to mention the vast lack of life during those times.

The whole issue with global warming is not really about the Earth (planet itself will be fine) but about how to do HUMANS survive...planet is not screwed..humans are

Answer 4

I think our effect on the global temperatures is probably at some level true and we should address this
however , as I understand it
gore tried to politicize it somehow blaming the republicans and this is a huge problem and creates further troubles in addressing the real issue
so thank al for setting it back another 20 years

Answer 5

certainly, there are a pair of climatologists who carry an incredibly comparable view. Reid Bryson, the father of cutting-ingredient climatology, and Roger Pielke, the main prolific and fantastically noted climatologist, the two reject CO2 because of the fact the main motive force of the cutting-edge warming. they think the cutting-edge warming is partly organic and partly guy. in addition they have faith land use/ land conceal ameliorations by ability of guy play a bigger function than CO2. Land use/ land conceal ameliorations particularly impression community and close by climate, which in turn impacts worldwide measurements. the main distinction is the theory does not incorporate useful feedbacks which will doom the planet. while an "outstanding" prediction is made, you may desire to anticipate human beings to verify it greater heavily - to call for data. you may could desire to anticipate scientists to verify any theory heavily in spite of how outstanding it could desire to look. except the technological know-how has been reproduced, it won't be in a position to be popular into the physique of scientific information.

Answer 6

What is the scientific answer?

Answer 7

You are extrapolating, which is guessing.

Your data is basically made up.