On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:13:20 +0200 (CEST), warren
<[email protected]> wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None ofThe two videos part 1 & part 2 explain it all factually but humorously
it is factual.
<https://climatecite.com/yes-prime-minister-on-climate-change/>
https://t.ly/h42TC
Yes, Prime Minister on Climate Change
Clips from the popular BBC series the New �Yes, Prime Minister�.
Global Warming, Parts 1 and 2. Surprising, isn�t it!
LMAO!
Well done!
Yes, Prime Minister
thepiratebay.party
Torrent (I've not used or downloaded)
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
is factual.
Le 08/04/2024 à 00:13, warren a écrit :
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of itLet's have a look at the correlation between each year human emissions and the corresponding temperature increase. Each point of the diagram below is
is factual.
a year (temperature variation, emissions).
https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
If emissions commanded temperatures, the graph should look like a straight line.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 06:57:50 -0400, JTEM says...
Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely
habitable.
I don't plan on being around when our sun goes super-nova anyway, so
why worry now?
You fuckers and your doomer attitudes. Go hide under mommy's skirt
and leave the critical thinking to those who aren't afraid of their
own shadows.
=====
March:
* Snowy Norway; Here Comes The Arctic *
* New Report: The Barrier Reef Is Doing Great
* Winter Returns To North America *
* Saudi Arabia Snow *
* Australia To Shiver *
* Greenland At -57.9C (-72.2F) *
* Arctic Sea Ice Extent is higher than 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019
*
* 2018, 2017, 2016, 2014, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 *
* "Don't Plant Yet": Spring Freeze Inbound *
* Heavy Snow Hits Colorado *
* New Cold Wave Enters China *
* Global Cooling Begins This March
* Late-March Arctic Blasts Headed For North America And Europe *
* "Wonderful Snowfall" Hits Southern Spain *
* Another Meter Pounds Newfoundland
* Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery
* Snowstorm Kills 5 In The Alps *
* Western Canada's Cold Snap Cost $180M *
* March Blizzards Bury The West... Much More To Come
* Deadly Avalanches Hit Japan, Alberta And Oregon *
* Portugal Sees "Huge Snowfalls" *
* Arctic Sea Ice Riding Well-Above Average
* Record Snowfall Sweeps Utah Mountains *
* Heavy Snow Hits Saskatchewan And Manitoba *
* Majority Of Record-Highs Set Prior To 1955 *
* Frostbitten Chiefs Fans Need Amputations *
* Record Snow Hits Jackson Hole *
* Late-March Arctic Blast? *
* 'Himalayan Winds' Deliver Record Cold To Delhi *
* Snowy Winter For The Urals *
* More Snow Than Forecast Is Hitting The Alps *
* California Snow Totals Surpass 10 Feet *
* Avalanche Blocks Tunnel In Italy *
* Heavy Snow, Avalanches And Power Outages Hit India *
* Pakistan Freezes *
* South Pole Logs Third-Earliest -60C On Record *
* "Life-Threatening" Blizzards Batter The West *
* Karachi's Coldest March Day In 43 Years *
* Snowstorms Hit Tibet *
* Europe Pounded *
* Snowfall Warnings Issues Across Europe *
* California's Snow Dump Commences *
* Antarctica Suffers Record Cold February Temperature
"Paul Aubrin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:4laRN.280732$[email protected]...
Le 08/04/2024 à 00:13, warren a écrit :
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. NoneLet's have a look at the correlation between each year human emissions
of it
is factual.
and the corresponding temperature increase. Each point of the diagram
below is a year (temperature variation, emissions).
https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
If emissions commanded temperatures, the graph should look like a
straight line.
Ok.. now let's expand the time scale.. and see if it shows the same correlation.
https://www.odt.co.nz/sites/default/files/story/2016/04/the_case_for_global_warming_is_in_serious_doubt_6102000384.gif
Le 09/04/2024 à 15:37, Scout a écrit :
"Paul Aubrin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:4laRN.280732$[email protected]...
Le 08/04/2024 à 00:13, warren a écrit :
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.Let's have a look at the correlation between each year human
None of it
is factual.
emissions and the corresponding temperature increase. Each point
of the diagram below is a year (temperature variation, emissions).
https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
If emissions commanded temperatures, the graph should look like a
straight line.
Ok.. now let's expand the time scale.. and see if it shows the same correlation.
https://www.odt.co.nz/sites/default/files/story/2016/04/the_case_for_global_warming_is_in_serious_doubt_6102000384.gif
Your answer is irrelevant. Each point in the following diagram is
associated with a calendar year. It links the human CO2 emissions
increase for the year with the temperature increase for the same year.
If emissions command temperatures, all the points should be (more or
less) aligned. https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
They are not. CO2 influence on temperatures is not detectable.
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global warming
effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon dioxide punches
above its weight.
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
Nuff said.
Ördög >> Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely habitable.
How does slapping regressive taxes on "The Bottom" 80 to 99%
of the people, as the rich continue to fly their private jets,
stop the planet from becoming barely habitable?
Why does natural gas kill the polar bears when it's burned
in the U.S.
but it's a clean, renewable energy source when it's burned in Europe?
How come China's more than 3,000 coal plants inch them
closer to Net Zero but the United States is igniting the
atmosphere with 217?
Gwobull Warbling mythology pretends that our CO2 emissions
touched off AGW when they hit 1 billion tons.
So of course
you'd be willing to murder the vast majority of humanity.
Nuff said.
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
is factual.
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
of it is factual.
What is a "climatist"?
You know what it means
In alt.global-warming Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it >>> is factual.
**What is a "climatist"?
Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:
To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and physics
. Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as courses in agricultural,.
-- www.dnr.sc.gov
Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
of it is factual.
**What is a "climatist"?
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:07:54 -0600, Phil Hendry's Chop shop
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric
gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range, far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
CO2 is what plants breathe!
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
soon will.
You are completely deceitful.
But Electric cars
The GHG in the atm reflect heat back down to the ground.
* Natural gas extraction is an destructive process that more often
then not also releases plenty pollutants into the environment.
* Burning natural gas is anything but "clean".
Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
On 10/04/2024 6:14 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.global-warming Trevor Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it is factual.
**What is a "climatist"?
Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:
To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and
physics . Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as
courses in agricultural,.
-- www.dnr.sc.gov
Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
Searching for the term: 'climatist' elicits only this:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climatist
Crossposting to aus.pol terminated
***************REPLONK**************
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
Nuff said.
FUCK OFF from aus.pol
***** PLONK *****
If you can
locate a dictionary definition, present it.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:29:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 6:14 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.global-warming Trevor Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it
is factual.
**What is a "climatist"?
To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and
physics . Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as
courses in agricultural,.
-- www.dnr.sc.gov
Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
Searching for the term: 'climatist' elicits only this:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climatist
Which spells out what it means, fuckwit.
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
is factual.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global warming
effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon dioxide punches
above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna epochs
of the past like the Jurassic.
CO2 is what plants breathe!
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and soon
will.
You are completely deceitful.
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
of it is factual.
Here's the thing:
We'll see,,,
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Bullshit they have
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
But his FORMULA isnt.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made,which have been shown to
be quite accurate:
More lies with the time when global temperatures barely moved for a while.
And STILL can't explain the medieval warm period.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in.
Bullshit it is.
Read it.
Shove your lies.
If you dispute the facts,
Your lies above are nothing even remotely like the facts.
then publish your own hypothesis and submit it for peer-review.
Don't need to.
Arrhenius made the claim with his formula which turned
out to not be able to explain the minimal change in global
temperatures we have actually seen over the time that
measured atmosopheric CO2 levels have doubled is his
claim. He gets to do the proving. That's how it works.
Phil Hendry's Chop shop
Ozix
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global warming
effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon dioxide punches
above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna epochs
of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and soon
will.
**Really? Prove it.
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING temperatures
(like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial period.
You are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has been presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been shown
to be quite accurate:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in. Read it.
If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and submit
it for peer-review.
CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming
trend. CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.
On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING temperatures
(like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial period.
You are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
Trevor Wilson
Phil Hendry's Chop shop
Ozix
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric
gasses. Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING
temperatures (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial
period.
You are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
Give it up Trevor!
You will never be able to convince these pro fossil fuel propaganda brain-fucked retards by arguing the the facts of proper climate
science. These freaks are either learn resistant idiots or alt-right
nutjobs or paid propagandists or all of the above.
:-(
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
Sure does NOT!
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
Read the charts.
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING temperatures
(like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial period.
The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
You are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw
12,000 Year Cycle
Suspicious0bservers
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:38:17 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming
trend. CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.
Which is so far removed from the 3,000+ppm of the Jurassic that it is to LAUGH!
Most any sentient being would take that lush and benevolent climate
regime over our coming ice age.
Learn up:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Bullshit lie!
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has been
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been shown
to be quite accurate:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
And in the 1970s our trustrthy scientific comunity were all up in a
lather over the looming Ice age...
Which somehow never came...
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn...
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in. Read it.
That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and submit
it for peer-review.
Jurassic period - the greatest proliferration of flora and fauna known
to earth >
CO2 evel today - 300 ppm
CO2 levek ten - 3,000 ppm.
Case CLOSED!
Oh, want more?
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
enjoy, dickhole.
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
of it is factual.
Here's the thing:
We'll see,,,
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.
Points:
* CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
The exact percentage is irrelevant.
The Arrhenius formula doesnt come even close to predicting
the change in global temperatures we have actually seen.
* There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
Pity that the increase in atmospheric CO2
levels has been going on for centurys now.
* Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are
very impressive.
Only for fools who can't manage to grasp that the FORMULA
he produced doesnt get within a bulls roar of the change in
global temperatures we have actually seen.
You don't need anything more than a calculator to see that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Bullshit they have
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
But his FORMULA isnt.
Let's discuss in 100 years.
No thanks. There has been a lot more than that since see
have seen a dramatic increase in the atmospheric CO2 level.
So far, his data points to pretty decent accuracy.
BULLSHIT.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made,which have been shown
to be quite accurate:
More lies with the time when global temperatures barely moved for a
while.
Examine the cites.
Which show nothing like what his formula predicts.
And STILL can't explain the medieval warm period.
There are several possibilities:
None of which are anything like the Arrhenius formula
which you stupidly claim is very accurate.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm
https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/medieval-warm-period-not-so-random/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in.
Bullshit it is.
OK. Then YOU present your hypothesisto explain the present warming
trend.
Don't need to when rubbing your nose in
the fact that the Arrhenius formula doesnt
get within a bulls roar of predicting the
small change in global temperatures that
we might have seen.
Read it.
Shove your lies.
Peer-reviewed data.
Which shows that the Arrhenius formula
doesnt get within a bulls roar of predicting
the small change in global temperatures
that we might have seen.
If you dispute the facts,
Your lies above are nothing even remotely like the facts.
I cite facts and data.
You actually lied when you claimed that the
Arrhenius formula accurately predicts the
change in global temps we might have seen.
If you dispute those facts and data,
I don't, I dispute your lie that the Arrhenius
formula accurately predicts the change in
global temps we might have seen.
then publish your own hypothesis and submit it for peer-review.
Don't need to.
Yeah, you actually do.
Nope, ALL I need to do is dispute your lie that
the Arrhenius formula accurately predicts the
change in global temps we might have seen.
Arrhenius made the claim with his formula which turned
out to not be able to explain the minimal change in global
temperatures we have actually seen over the time that
measured atmosopheric CO2 levels have doubled is his
claim. He gets to do the proving. That's how it works.
CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming trend.
The Arrhenius formula has to explain the change in global
temperatures over the entire range of atmospheric CO2 levels
that have been observed, not just the present warming trend.
And it doesnt even come close to getting it right
even with this range you are cherry picking.
CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.
<reams of your shit flushed where it belongs>
On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of
it is factual.
Here's the thing:
We'll see,,,
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was an
atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided it was >>> in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his hypothesis to
include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the planet to warm
excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never been >>> successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.
**Points:
* CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
* There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
* Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are very impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Bullshit they have
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
But his FORMULA isnt.
**Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty decent accuracy.
On 11/04/2024 10:05 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric
gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.
**And, once more: It was WAY, WAY hotter back then too.
It's what CO2 in the atmosphere does. It causes warming.
4,000ppm of CO2 will not
only cause an average of around 10 degrees C more temperature rise
(along with consequent sea level rise, etc), but will lead to health
effects in humans. We are not evolved to cope with that much CO2. We
have evolved to cope with around 300ppm of CO2.
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!
**Not HUMAN animals. And not any of the crops and animals we eat
either.
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
Sure does NOT!
**Sure it does you moron. CO2 is a known asphyxiant:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
Read the charts.
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**Cite a proper scientific document. I don't watch Youtube for my
scientific information.
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING
temperatures (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial
period.
The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**As above.
Also, you need to explain how a glacial period can occur, when
temperatures are rising. A glacial period can only occur when
temperatures fall. Pretty simple stuff.
You are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw
12,000 Year Cycle
Suspicious0bservers
**As above. Cite peer-reviewed scientific documents.
On 11/04/2024 10:01 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:38:17 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming
trend. CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.
Which is so far removed from the 3,000+ppm of the Jurassic that it
is to LAUGH!
**And, when such high levels of CO2 were present, temperatures were
MUCH higher than they are today.
Most any sentient being would take that lush and benevolent climate
regime over our coming ice age.
**What "coming ice age"?
Just a reminder:
Temperatures are RISING.
For an ice age to occur, temperatures must FALL.
Pretty basic science.
Learn up:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**Not interested in Youtube bullshit. Cite peer-reviewed science.
On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2
was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing,
provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2
would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
**You have ZERO idea about such things.
The planet has warmed excessively in the past, when CO2 levels were
higher than they are today. As much as 10 degrees C higher, in fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Coincidentally (or not) CO2 levels were also very high.
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive
experimental data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His
theory has never been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Bullshit lie!
**Is that so? Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the
present warming trend.
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has been
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been shown
to be quite accurate:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
And in the 1970s our trustrthy scientific comunity were all up in a
lather over the looming Ice age...
**Bullshit. NONE of the planet's climate scientists were saying such twaddle. It was a Newsweek story. Newsweek is not a scientific
publication of note.
Which somehow never came...
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn...
**Of course. It was bullshit when it was published by Newsweek and
condemned by climate scientists at the time.
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in. Read it.
That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
**Nope. It's proof you moron.
If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and
submit it for peer-review.
Jurassic period - the greatest proliferration of flora and fauna
known to earth >
CO2 evel today - 300 ppm
CO2 levek ten - 3,000 ppm.
Case CLOSED!
**Just a reminder: CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today.
Humans were not around. The plants and animals we eat were not around.
Oh, want more?
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
enjoy, dickhole.
**Try citing some science you fucking moron, rather than some dodgy
Youtube bullshit.
I bet you can't.
That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
**Nope. It's proof you moron.
**Then present your alternate hypothesis.
I bet you don't.
CO2 is a known asphyxiant:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:30:19 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you now admit that CO2
levels have not doubled?
Do you concede that .04% of atmospheric inert gasses is insufficient
to do anything as far as heating?
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:26:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:05 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric
gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.
**And, once more: It was WAY, WAY hotter back then too.
That's what made it literal PARADISE for plants and animals!
It's what CO2 in the atmosphere does. It causes warming.
Nope, not even close, that's our solar cycle.
ONLY the sun is our dominant heat engine, nothing else.
4,000ppm of CO2 will not
only cause an average of around 10 degrees C more temperature rise
(along with consequent sea level rise, etc), but will lead to health
effects in humans. We are not evolved to cope with that much CO2. We
have evolved to cope with around 300ppm of CO2.
Oh no, another LIE!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15131068/
On one occasion investigations were carried out while subjects were
breathing room air and on the other while subjects were breathing air containing 5% CO2, inducing hypercapnia and stimulating systemic chemoreceptors. During hypercapnic conditions, as compared with
normocapnia, there were significant increases (P < 0.05) in minute ventilation, end-tidal CO2 and estimated arterial P(CO2). Furthermore,
under hypercapnic conditions there was an increase in orthostatic
tolerance, peak heart rate and time to peak heart rate during LBNP. The LBNP-induced increase in calf circumference was significantly
attenuated at -50 mmHg of LBNP in addition to a further 22.3% reduction
in stroke volume under hypercapnic conditions.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Human-Physiological-Tolerance-Time-for-Various-Carbon-Dioxide-Concentrations-and-Acute_tbl2_330688186
https://www.theathletetribe.com/understanding-co2-tolerance-how-to-train/
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a2c040697c1463607099dd3b408aa5bae48631b4
Human health effects of CO2 have been examined in the scientific and medical literature as a
prerequisite to health risk assessment for releases of CO2 from CO2 capture, transport, and
sequestration (CT&S) sites. Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat to human
health...
Table 2: Commonly Cited Effects of CO2
2-5
CO2 Effects
1% Respiratory rate (RR) ↑ 37%
1.6% V
· ↑ ~100%
2% RR ↑ ~50%; brain blood flow ↑
3% Exercise tolerance ↓ in workers when breathing against
inspiratory & expiratory resistance
5% V
· ↑ ~200%; RR ↑ ~100%, dizziness, HA, confusion, dyspnea
7.2% RR ↑ ~200%, HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea
8-10% Severe HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea, sweating, dim vision
10% Unbearable dyspnea, followed by vomiting, disorientation,
hypertension, & loss of consciousness
You do realize that .04% means NOTHING to humans, not a damned thing!
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!
**Not HUMAN animals. And not any of the crops and animals we eat
either.
Different epoch, different fauna and flora,so?
Did you stop believing in evolution too?
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
Sure does NOT!
**Sure it does you moron. CO2 is a known asphyxiant:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html >>
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
Read the charts.
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**Cite a proper scientific document. I don't watch Youtube for my
scientific information.
Davidson is a proper scientist, learn not to be a cunt that plays shoot
the messenger, turdbucket!
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING
temperatures (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial
period.
The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**As above.
Also, you need to explain how a glacial period can occur, when
temperatures are rising. A glacial period can only occur when
temperatures fall. Pretty simple stuff.
Simple, a solar micronova blasts through our diminished magnetosphere
(down 30% or more now) and leads to a pole shift and global inundation followed by glaciation as new poles form.
You are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw >>>
12,000 Year Cycle
Suspicious0bservers
**As above. Cite peer-reviewed scientific documents.
I already did.earth and sun, including a new chapter on extreme solar activity and earth's catastrophe cycle.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Weatherman_s_Guide_to_the_Sun.html?id=3fMuvwEACAAJ
2018 - Solar-terrestrial physics - 199 pages
"The sun affects the weather, earthquakes, our health and more. The
science of space weather is electromagnetic, and the discoveries of how
it affects our world are incredible and inspiring. 100s of the most
important studies are communicated in a way you can understand, along
with their place in the bigger picture. This is your guide to the
sun."--
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42078263
A great introduction to the dynamics that the Sun and Space Weather
have on our planets conditions, from health to seismic issues,
Davidson, who also runs Space Weather News and the Youtube Channel Suspicious0bservers, offers a compelling and easy to read book that
details in laymans terms how the sun affects us.
https://observerranch.podia.com/weatherman-s-guide-to-the-sun-3rd-edition
Space weather has become a recognized actor in weather, long-term climate change, seismicity, technological performance and biology. This third edition of the literature review covers ~500 of the most-important studies describing the interactions of
On 12/04/2024 3:49 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:26:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:05 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric
gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.
**And, once more: It was WAY, WAY hotter back then too.
That's what made it literal PARADISE for plants and animals!
**Just a reminder: Humans were not in existence back then.
Nor were the flora and fauna we consume to survive.
Nor was NYC, Florida,
London, Bangladesh and many other highly populated places.
It's what CO2 in the atmosphere does. It causes warming.
Nope, not even close, that's our solar cycle.
**One thing does not preclude the other. Yes, Solar radiation is the
major driver of climate on this planet, but CO2 is NOT an
insignificant driver. In fact, you mentioned the 'Solar cycle'. You
should examine the most recent Solar cycles, as they have exhibited historically low levels of activity. Yet the average temperature of
the planet is still rising. Curious, yes?
Not so much, because CO2 is a significant driver of temperatures.
ONLY the sun is our dominant heat engine, nothing else.
**I NEVER claimed otherwise, but to ignore the influence of CO2 is a
stupid and fatal error.
4,000ppm of CO2 will not
only cause an average of around 10 degrees C more temperature rise
(along with consequent sea level rise, etc), but will lead to
health effects in humans. We are not evolved to cope with that
much CO2. We have evolved to cope with around 300ppm of CO2.
Oh no, another LIE!
**Really? The YOU tell me what levels of CO2 humans evolved under.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15131068/
On one occasion investigations were carried out while subjects were breathing room air and on the other while subjects were breathing
air containing 5% CO2, inducing hypercapnia and stimulating systemic chemoreceptors. During hypercapnic conditions, as compared with normocapnia, there were significant increases (P < 0.05) in minute ventilation, end-tidal CO2 and estimated arterial P(CO2).
Furthermore, under hypercapnic conditions there was an increase in orthostatic tolerance, peak heart rate and time to peak heart rate
during LBNP. The LBNP-induced increase in calf circumference was significantly attenuated at -50 mmHg of LBNP in addition to a
further 22.3% reduction in stroke volume under hypercapnic
conditions.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Human-Physiological-Tolerance-Time-for-Various-Carbon-Dioxide-Concentrations-and-Acute_tbl2_330688186
https://www.theathletetribe.com/understanding-co2-tolerance-how-to-train/
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a2c040697c1463607099dd3b408aa5bae48631b4
Human health effects of CO2 have been examined in the scientific
and medical literature as a prerequisite to health risk assessment
for releases of CO2 from CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration
(CT&S) sites. Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat
to human health...
**Of course. CO2 levels need to be MUCH higher to cause problems in
humans. Plants are another matter entirely.
Table 2: Commonly Cited Effects of CO2
2-5
CO2 Effects
1% Respiratory rate (RR) ↑ 37%
1.6% V
· ↑ ~100%
2% RR ↑ ~50%; brain blood flow ↑
3% Exercise tolerance ↓ in workers when breathing against
inspiratory & expiratory resistance
5% V
· ↑ ~200%; RR ↑ ~100%, dizziness, HA, confusion, dyspnea
7.2% RR ↑ ~200%, HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea
8-10% Severe HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea, sweating, dim vision
10% Unbearable dyspnea, followed by vomiting, disorientation,
hypertension, & loss of consciousness
You do realize that .04% means NOTHING to humans, not a damned
thing!
**I never claimed otherwise.
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!
**Not HUMAN animals. And not any of the crops and animals we eat
either.
Different epoch, different fauna and flora,so?
**Read what I wrote.
Did you stop believing in evolution too?
**I don't "believe" in evolution.
I ACCEPT the fact of evolution of species on this planet.
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
Sure does NOT!
**Sure it does you moron. CO2 is a known asphyxiant:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html >>
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period,
and soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
Read the charts.
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**Cite a proper scientific document. I don't watch Youtube for my
scientific information.
Davidson is a proper scientist, learn not to be a cunt that plays
shoot the messenger, turdbucket!
**Then cite a proper, peer-reviewed scientific document.
I don't and
will not obtain scientific information from Youtube videos.
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING
temperatures (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial
period.
The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**As above.
Also, you need to explain how a glacial period can occur, when
temperatures are rising. A glacial period can only occur when
temperatures fall. Pretty simple stuff.
Simple, a solar micronova blasts through our diminished
magnetosphere (down 30% or more now) and leads to a pole shift and
global inundation followed by glaciation as new poles form.
**I see. And just when will this occur? Date please.
You are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw >>>
12,000 Year Cycle
Suspicious0bservers
**As above. Cite peer-reviewed scientific documents.
I already did.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Weatherman_s_Guide_to_the_Sun.html?id=3fMuvwEACAAJ
2018 - Solar-terrestrial physics - 199 pages
"The sun affects the weather, earthquakes, our health and more. The
science of space weather is electromagnetic, and the discoveries of
how it affects our world are incredible and inspiring. 100s of the
most important studies are communicated in a way you can
understand, along with their place in the bigger picture. This is
your guide to the sun."--
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42078263
A great introduction to the dynamics that the Sun and Space Weather
have on our planets conditions, from health to seismic issues,
Davidson, who also runs Space Weather News and the Youtube Channel Suspicious0bservers, offers a compelling and easy to read book that
details in laymans terms how the sun affects us.
https://observerranch.podia.com/weatherman-s-guide-to-the-sun-3rd-edition
Space weather has become a recognized actor in weather, long-term
climate change, seismicity, technological performance and biology.
This third edition of the literature review covers ~500 of the most-important studies describing the interactions of earth and
sun, including a new chapter on extreme solar activity and earth's catastrophe cycle.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2
was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing,
provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2
would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
**You have ZERO idea about such things.
Yet I just described them accurately to you.
This is a closed loop negative feedback system,period.
The planet has warmed excessively in the past, when CO2 levels were
higher than they are today. As much as 10 degrees C higher, in fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Coincidentally (or not) CO2 levels were also very high.
As was plant cover and fauna.>
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive
experimental data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His
theory has never been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Bullshit lie!
**Is that so? Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the
present warming trend.
Magnetosphere is down over 30% at present.
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has been
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been shown
to be quite accurate:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
And in the 1970s our trustrthy scientific comunity were all up in a
lather over the looming Ice age...
**Bullshit. NONE of the planet's climate scientists were saying such
twaddle. It was a Newsweek story. Newsweek is not a scientific
publication of note.
No, it was a multitude of media, liar.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822-300-the-ice-age-that-never-was/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
he general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[2] The actual increase in this period was
29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse gases as
a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in 1968.[3] By the
time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the
mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in
the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[4]
In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization
issued a warning in June 1976 that "a very significant warming of
global climate" was probable.[5]
Which somehow never came...
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn...
**Of course. It was bullshit when it was published by Newsweek and
condemned by climate scientists at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[2] The actual increase in this period was
29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse gases as
a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in 1968.[3] By the
time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the
mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in
the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[4]
In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization
issued a warning in June 1976 that "a very significant warming of
global climate" was probable.[5]
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2006-pt14/html/CRECB-2006-pt14-Pg19154.htm
From 1895 until the 1930s, the
media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s,
they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s, they
warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming
the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change
fears during the last 100 years--4 times during the last 100 years--and
every time just as hysterical as the time before.
Here is a quote from the New York Times on fears of an approaching
ice age:
Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895, edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat, 1895, not 1995.
A front-page article in the October 7, 1912, New York Times, just a
few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that
a prominent professor ``Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.''
The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article
warning that the ``human race will have to fight for its existence
against the cold.''
An August 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared:
Ice Age Coming Here.
By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice
age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming. This is the 1930s:
America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line
Records a 25-year Rise.
That was in an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of
fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An August 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune
declared:
Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.
The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that
large parts of Europe and Asia would be ``wiped out'' and Switzerland
would be ``entirely obliterated.''
A December 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling
reported that climatologists believed ``the facts of the present
climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign
near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.''
The article also warned that unless Government officials reacted to
the coming catastrophe ``mass deaths by starvation and probably in
anarchy and violence'' would result. In 1975, the New York Times
reported that ``a major cooling [was] widely considered to be
inevitable.''
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in. Read it.
That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
**Nope. It's proof you moron.
Nope, just more .04% tail wagging the dog froth.
If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and
submit it for peer-review.
Jurassic period - the greatest proliferration of flora and fauna
known to earth >
CO2 evel today - 300 ppm
CO2 levek ten - 3,000 ppm.
Case CLOSED!
**Just a reminder: CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today.
Humans were not around. The plants and animals we eat were not around.
Irrelevant, all that was around THRIVED!
time it happened was about 12,000 years age and it is estimated that only about 30 fertile females survived and all of us are related to one of them.Try educating yourself.
Oh, want more?
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
enjoy, dickhole.
**Try citing some science you fucking moron, rather than some dodgy
Youtube bullshit.
I bet you can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoMHt4UZZY&list=PLYRAmtDzQomgyo8ht4F6VuJWNpge5OP-M
Video Series 1 on the basic information theory should be seen first to fully understand the philosophy behind discovering what causes the polar reversals and ice ages.
Video series 4, Part 1B, covers the most important information for anyone on this planet because I will fully explain what causes the ice ages and why they happen immediately after a geomagnetic reversal (Pole shift, polar reversal). The last
If you have any questions on any of the videos, just send your questions to [email protected] or [email protected] and they will be answered directly or in a Q&A video in that series. List of all the video Series’s:
Video Series 1 The Theory of Multidimensional Reality.
Part 1: The two different ways to describe the Universe:
• Series 1, Part 1, The Two Ways to Des... .
Part 2: Defining the Problem. How I found the Clock Cycle in the Universe;
• Series 1, Part 2; The Secret of the U... .
Part 3: Creation of the Atom and Defining Dimensions;
• Series 1, Part 3.Theory of Multidimen... .
Part 4: Dimensions 5-8. What is Gravity;
• Series 1, Part 4, Theory of Multidime... .
Part 5: What is Light;
• Series 1, Part 5, What is Light the T... .
Part 6: The Subatomic “Particles” and what they Really are;
• Series 1, Part 6, Are we in a Hologra... .
Part 7: Where Quasars get their energy;
• Quasars, Black Holes, are we in a Ho... .
Part 8: The Crisis in Physics;
• Series1, Part 8, There cannot be any ... .
Video Series 2. Creation of the Hebrew Alphabet.
Part 1: The creation model of the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 1, Creation of the Heb... .
Part 2: The science philosophy behind the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 2, The Creation and Fo... .
Part 3: The Three Shapes the Letters Form;
• Series 2, Part 3, The 3 shapes the 22... .
Part 4: Dating the Torah and the Technology;
• Series 2, Part 4, Secret of the Unive... .
Video Series 3. Gravity & time experiments.
Part 1: Field Experiment at Oregon Vortex, Santa Cruz Mystery Spot;
• Series 3, Gravitational Mystery Spots... .
Video Series 4. Causes of the Ice Ages & Polar Reversals.
Part 1: Clock cycles that cause the reversals;
• Series 4, Introduction, Causes of the... .
Part 2: Proof Sun novas;
• Series 4, Part 2, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 2B: Proof all stars Nova;
• Series 4, Part 2B, All Stars Nova on ... .
Part 3: The great flood;
• Series 4, Part 3, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 4A: Sea level changes;
• Series 4, Part 4A, The 14C Evidence o... .
Part 4B: Meteors do not cause extinctions;
• Series 4, Part 4B, Causes of the Ice ... .
Part 4C/E: 14C dating Issues;
• Series 4, Part 4E The mass extinction... .
Part 4D: Greenland crater;
• Series 4, Part 4D The Last Ice Age an... .
Part 4F: Earth’s rotation reverses during polar reversal;
• Series 4, Part 4F, The Earths Rotatio... .
Part 4G: Mechanism that creates the Earth’s magnetic field & rotation?;
• Series 4, Part 4G, 2nd Half, Why the ... .
Part 5A: Ways to survive the reversal;
• Series 4, Part 5A, When will the Pole... .
Part 5B: The easy way to survive;
• Series 4, Part 5B, Where to go and ho... .
Part 5C: Most coded secret in the Torah;
• Series 4, Part 5C, The Easy Way to Su... .
Video Series 6. Moses 10 Code Systems:
Part 1: Code systems 1-7;
• Series 6 Part 1, Moses 10 Code System... .
Part 2: Code systems 8-10, #12,068 Embedded in the Torah;
• Series 6 part 2, Moses and the 10 cod... .
Video Series 7. God’s Code System:
Part 1: God’s 11th code system;
• Series 7 part 1, God's Code System, 1... .
Part 2: 12,068 day cycles:
• Series 7, Part 2, God's 11th Code Sys... .
Video Series 8. Abraham & the cave:
Part 1: Why Abraham Sold his Half Sister 2X;
• Series 8, Part 1; Volume I, From Abra... .
Part 2: Coded Names for Mount Sinai & the Technology in the cave;
• Series 8, Part 2, From Abraham to Jacob .
Video Series 9. Joseph & slavery for 11 Tribes:
Part 1: Young Joseph;
• Series 9, Part 1, Vol. II, Joseph was... .
Part 2: Becomes prime minister;
• Series 9, Part 2, From Volume II, Jos... .
Part 3: 11 tribes enslaved;
• Series 9, Part 3, From Volume II, Sla... .
Video Series 10. The Exodus and Finding the Real Mount Sinai: Part 1: the Pharaoh;
• Series 10, Part 1, Egypt just before ... .
Part 2: Moses & the cave;
• Series 10, Part 2, From Volume III; T... .
Part 3: The Altars;
• Series 10, Part 3, From Volume III; F... .
Part 4: The Ark:
• Series 10, Part 4, From Volume III; H... .
Part 5: After Mount Sinai;
• Series 10, Part 5, How to survive the... .
Part 6: The missing 12 tribes:
• Series 10, Part 6, Why did God do thi... .
Video Series 12. How & who Changed the Science:
Part 1: How & Who;
• Series 12, Part 1; How & Who changed ... .
Part 2: Why the Piso’s did it;
• Series 12, Part 2, Why did the Piso's... .
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:20:23 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/04/2024 3:49 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:26:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:05 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric
gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global
warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.
**And, once more: It was WAY, WAY hotter back then too.
That's what made it literal PARADISE for plants and animals!
**Just a reminder: Humans were not in existence back then.
Just a reminder, neither were sparrows, mice or crows...so?
https://www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.htmlear and jaw bones of a mammal and dates from the late Triassic.
Early mammals
Dinosaurs may have been the dominant land animals, but they were not alone. Early mammals were mostly very small herbivores or insectivores and were not in competition with the larger reptiles. Adelobasileus, a shrew-like animal, had the differentiated
Researchers have unearthed a 112 million-year-old mammal jaw in Japan. The jaw shows that mammals from this clade were rapidly evolving traits that would eventually be found in placental mammals. Here, an illustration of what the first placental mammalmay have looked like.
Researchers have unearthed a 112 million-year-old mammal jaw in Japan. The jaw shows that mammals from this clade were rapidly evolving traits that would eventually be found in placental mammals. Here, an illustration of what the first placental mammalmay have looked like. (Image credit: CREDIT: Image courtesy of Carl Buell)
In August 2011, scientists in China announced discovery of Juramaia.
This tiny animal of the mid-Jurassic has caused excitement among
scientists because it is clearly a eutherian, an ancestor of placental mammals, indicating that mammals evolved much earlier than previously thought.
Nor were the flora and fauna we consume to survive.
So?
https://www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.html
By the beginning of the Jurassic, plant life had evolved from Bryophytes, the low-growing mosses and liverworts that lacked vascular tissue and were confined to swampy moist areas.
Ferns and gingkoes, complete with roots and vascular tissue to move
water and nutrients and a spore system of reproduction, were the
dominant plants of the early Jurassic. During the Jurassic, a new
method of plant reproduction evolved. Gymnosperms, cone-bearing plants
such as conifers, allowed for wind distribution of pollen. This
bisexual reproduction allowed for greater genetic combination and by
the end of the Jurassic, the gymnosperms were widespread.
Nor was NYC, Florida,
London, Bangladesh and many other highly populated places.
I think you have a melancholy for speciation not being identical
through different epochs.
Sorry about evolutuon and all that rot...
It's what CO2 in the atmosphere does. It causes warming.
Nope, not even close, that's our solar cycle.
**One thing does not preclude the other. Yes, Solar radiation is the
major driver of climate on this planet, but CO2 is NOT an
insignificant driver. In fact, you mentioned the 'Solar cycle'. You
should examine the most recent Solar cycles, as they have exhibited
historically low levels of activity. Yet the average temperature of
the planet is still rising. Curious, yes?
Not so much, because CO2 is a significant driver of temperatures.
No gas that reresents .04% of our atmosphere is capable of driving ANY
major temperature regimes.
Sorry for your total leftarded brainwashing - the SUN is the dominant
heating element here, period.
ONLY the sun is our dominant heat engine, nothing else.
**I NEVER claimed otherwise, but to ignore the influence of CO2 is a
stupid and fatal error.
Its influence is transitory and minimal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth
and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
4,000ppm of CO2 will not
only cause an average of around 10 degrees C more temperature rise
(along with consequent sea level rise, etc), but will lead to
health effects in humans. We are not evolved to cope with that
much CO2. We have evolved to cope with around 300ppm of CO2.
Oh no, another LIE!
**Really? The YOU tell me what levels of CO2 humans evolved under.
You tell me what level of CO2 saturation is toxic to humans (in their
present developmental state):
____________________________________________________________________
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15131068/
On one occasion investigations were carried out while subjects were
breathing room air and on the other while subjects were breathing
air containing 5% CO2, inducing hypercapnia and stimulating systemic
chemoreceptors. During hypercapnic conditions, as compared with
normocapnia, there were significant increases (P < 0.05) in minute
ventilation, end-tidal CO2 and estimated arterial P(CO2).
Furthermore, under hypercapnic conditions there was an increase in
orthostatic tolerance, peak heart rate and time to peak heart rate
during LBNP. The LBNP-induced increase in calf circumference was
significantly attenuated at -50 mmHg of LBNP in addition to a
further 22.3% reduction in stroke volume under hypercapnic
conditions.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Human-Physiological-Tolerance-Time-for-Various-Carbon-Dioxide-Concentrations-and-Acute_tbl2_330688186
https://www.theathletetribe.com/understanding-co2-tolerance-how-to-train/ >>>
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a2c040697c1463607099dd3b408aa5bae48631b4
Human health effects of CO2 have been examined in the scientific
and medical literature as a prerequisite to health risk assessment
for releases of CO2 from CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration
(CT&S) sites. Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat
to human health...
**Of course. CO2 levels need to be MUCH higher to cause problems in
humans. Plants are another matter entirely.
Plants create...wait for it...OXYGEN!
More CO2 means more plant food and that means more OXYGEN!
Bit of a self-regulating negative feedback loop then, innit dimmy?
Table 2: Commonly Cited Effects of CO2
2-5
CO2 Effects
1% Respiratory rate (RR) ↑ 37%
1.6% V
· ↑ ~100%
2% RR ↑ ~50%; brain blood flow ↑
3% Exercise tolerance ↓ in workers when breathing against
inspiratory & expiratory resistance
5% V
· ↑ ~200%; RR ↑ ~100%, dizziness, HA, confusion, dyspnea
7.2% RR ↑ ~200%, HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea
8-10% Severe HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea, sweating, dim vision
10% Unbearable dyspnea, followed by vomiting, disorientation,
hypertension, & loss of consciousness
You do realize that .04% means NOTHING to humans, not a damned
thing!
**I never claimed otherwise.
Liar.
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna >>>>>>> epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!
**Not HUMAN animals. And not any of the crops and animals we eat
either.
Different epoch, different fauna and flora,so?
**Read what I wrote.
Read what a fecund and rich epoch it was!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016787859800687
The geological record shows, compared to the present, that the Jurassic
Earth was an exotic world. The climatic processes operating are
illustrated by reference to Late Jurassic palaeoclimate reconstructions generated on a computer-based General Circulation Model. Throughout the Period, and indeed through much of the Mesozoic, dense forests grew
close to both poles and experienced months-long daylight.
Ocean deeps were warmer, perhaps by 8°C, than the present. Reefs grew
10° of latitude further north and south than at the present time but
with corals as a subordinate component. The whole Earth is modelled to
have been warmer than now by 5° C to 10° C, causing a higher
atmospheric humidity and greatly enhanced hydrological cycle. Modelling
also suggests that much of the rainfall was convective in character and focused under the Intertropical Convergence Zone over the oceans,
leaving major desert expanses on the continents. There is no direct geological evidence for polar ice sheets which, from model output, are unlikely to have been present for most of the time because of the high
summer temperatures in these areas. Oxygen isotopic ratios in marine
shells are more negative (i.e. show less 18O enrichment) than during
later times, reflecting an absence of major terrestrial ice caps which
would have stored water enriched with 16O. Localized mountain glaciers
cannot be ruled out, particularly in high altitude southern polar
terrains, but there is no convincing evidence of short-term and
large-scale eustatic changes associated with major glaciation and deglaciation comparable with those of the Neogene. Model results for
the Jurassic do, however, suggest the possibility of upland ice sheets
during orbitally induced climatic minima. During the Jurassic, the
world was predominantly warm with at least four times the present level
of atmospheric CO2, and model outputs for evaporation and precipitation generally conform well with the known distributions of evaporates,
calcretes and other climatically sensitive facies.
Did you stop believing in evolution too?
**I don't "believe" in evolution.
Then you;re in denial of the walk of terrestrial life from sea to land,
an odd thing to deny...
I ACCEPT the fact of evolution of species on this planet.
No, you just denied it.
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
Sure does NOT!
**Sure it does you moron. CO2 is a known asphyxiant:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html >>>>
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period,
and soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
Read the charts.
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**Cite a proper scientific document. I don't watch Youtube for my
scientific information.
Davidson is a proper scientist, learn not to be a cunt that plays
shoot the messenger, turdbucket!
**Then cite a proper, peer-reviewed scientific document.
I already have.
https://www.amazon.com/Weathermans-Guide-Sun-Ben-Davidson/dp/148358898X
Weatherman's Guide to the Sun: First Edition Paperback – January 16, 2017 by Ben Davidson (Author)
4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars 50 ratings
See all formats and editions
If you have ever wanted to understand the intricate details of how our
world actually works, but didn't want to get an advanced degree and
read thousands of papers, don't worry- we did it for you, and we
simplified it to a level that any interested individual can engage.
With hundreds of new studies published on the sun-climate connection
over the last decade, it is imperative that any meteorologist
understand the forces on the sun that cause their model errors and the unexpected events. This book compiles and simplifies the latest
advancements in understanding the sun-earth connection, and the
direction of the field. From weather and climate change to
technological disruptions and earthquakes. Understanding the forces of
our world has never been easier with The Weatherman's Guide to the Sun.
I don't and
will not obtain scientific information from Youtube videos.
Then you'll remain in blank and endless ignorance.
Sound data can be disseminated in a variety of formats.
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING
temperatures (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial
period.
The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**As above.
Also, you need to explain how a glacial period can occur, when
temperatures are rising. A glacial period can only occur when
temperatures fall. Pretty simple stuff.
Simple, a solar micronova blasts through our diminished
magnetosphere (down 30% or more now) and leads to a pole shift and
global inundation followed by glaciation as new poles form.
**I see. And just when will this occur? Date please.
The far analytic spectrum says 2046.
At present the north pole has migrated almost to Siberia, the south pole
has broken off creating the south Atlantic anomaly.
And the magnetosphere is down over 30%
And we're right on the cusp of a transition from one of our weakest
solar cycles into a trough.
When that happens the glactic current sheet covers the sun briefly as
flaring goes dormant, pressure builds, subsequently a catastrophic
release of galactic dust and micro-tektites bombard the solar system and earth is in that path.
You can even read about it in scripture:
https://bigthink.com/the-past/earth-magnetic-field-biblical-stories-ancient-cities-destruction/
http://www.scripturescholar.com/JoshuasLongDay.htmwith the giver of usury to him.
Lists of Pole Shifts
Probable Pole shifts evidenced in the Bible starting with the most recent
In Hezekiah’s days, c. 704 B.C. Going back of the shadow of the sun (2Ki 20:8-11).
In Joshua’s days, c. 1398 B.C. the long day of Joshua (Josh 10:9-13).
In Peleg’s days, c. 2669-2436 B.C., the earth was divided (Gen 10:25).
In Noah’s days, c. 3200 B.C., the Flood of Noah (Gen 7:17-8:14).
On the third day of creation, the land was divided from the sea (Gen 1:9-10). Pole shift in general c. 2000 B.C. God answers to Job (Job 38:1:23)
Isaiah 24
King James Version
24 Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so
3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word.do shake.
4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
7 The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merryhearted do sigh.
8 The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth.
9 They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it.
10 The city of confusion is broken down: every house is shut up, that no man may come in.
11 There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened, the mirth of the land is gone.
12 In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten with destruction.
13 When thus it shall be in the midst of the land among the people, there shall be as the shaking of an olive tree, and as the gleaning grapes when the vintage is done.
14 They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the Lord, they shall cry aloud from the sea.
15 Wherefore glorify ye the Lord in the fires, even the name of the Lord God of Israel in the isles of the sea.
16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.
17 Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth.
18 And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth
19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the
Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before
his ancients gloriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLL0wDljyKUYou are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw >>>>>
12,000 Year Cycle
Suspicious0bservers
**As above. Cite peer-reviewed scientific documents.
I already did.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Weatherman_s_Guide_to_the_Sun.html?id=3fMuvwEACAAJ
2018 - Solar-terrestrial physics - 199 pages
"The sun affects the weather, earthquakes, our health and more. The
science of space weather is electromagnetic, and the discoveries of
how it affects our world are incredible and inspiring. 100s of the
most important studies are communicated in a way you can
understand, along with their place in the bigger picture. This is
your guide to the sun."--
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42078263
A great introduction to the dynamics that the Sun and Space Weather
have on our planets conditions, from health to seismic issues,
Davidson, who also runs Space Weather News and the Youtube Channel
Suspicious0bservers, offers a compelling and easy to read book that
details in laymans terms how the sun affects us.
https://observerranch.podia.com/weatherman-s-guide-to-the-sun-3rd-edition >>>
Space weather has become a recognized actor in weather, long-term
climate change, seismicity, technological performance and biology.
This third edition of the literature review covers ~500 of the
most-important studies describing the interactions of earth and
sun, including a new chapter on extreme solar activity and earth's
catastrophe cycle.
Air Force Warns of the Pole Shift, Solar Flare/CME | S0 News Mar.11.2024
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1040918.pdf
(source document)
ENJOY!
time it happened was about 12,000 years age and it is estimated that only about 30 fertile females survived and all of us are related to one of them.Try educating yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoMHt4UZZY&list=PLYRAmtDzQomgyo8ht4F6VuJWNpge5OP-M
Video Series 1 on the basic information theory should be seen first to fully understand the philosophy behind discovering what causes the polar reversals and ice ages.
Video series 4, Part 1B, covers the most important information for anyone on this planet because I will fully explain what causes the ice ages and why they happen immediately after a geomagnetic reversal (Pole shift, polar reversal). The last
If you have any questions on any of the videos, just send your questions to [email protected] or [email protected] and they will be answered directly or in a Q&A video in that series. List of all the video Series’s:
Video Series 1 The Theory of Multidimensional Reality.
Part 1: The two different ways to describe the Universe:
• Series 1, Part 1, The Two Ways to Des... .
Part 2: Defining the Problem. How I found the Clock Cycle in the Universe;
• Series 1, Part 2; The Secret of the U... .
Part 3: Creation of the Atom and Defining Dimensions;
• Series 1, Part 3.Theory of Multidimen... .
Part 4: Dimensions 5-8. What is Gravity;
• Series 1, Part 4, Theory of Multidime... .
Part 5: What is Light;
• Series 1, Part 5, What is Light the T... .
Part 6: The Subatomic “Particles” and what they Really are;
• Series 1, Part 6, Are we in a Hologra... .
Part 7: Where Quasars get their energy;
• Quasars, Black Holes, are we in a Ho... .
Part 8: The Crisis in Physics;
• Series1, Part 8, There cannot be any ... .
Video Series 2. Creation of the Hebrew Alphabet.
Part 1: The creation model of the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 1, Creation of the Heb... .
Part 2: The science philosophy behind the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 2, The Creation and Fo... .
Part 3: The Three Shapes the Letters Form;
• Series 2, Part 3, The 3 shapes the 22... .
Part 4: Dating the Torah and the Technology;
• Series 2, Part 4, Secret of the Unive... .
Video Series 3. Gravity & time experiments.
Part 1: Field Experiment at Oregon Vortex, Santa Cruz Mystery Spot;
• Series 3, Gravitational Mystery Spots... .
Video Series 4. Causes of the Ice Ages & Polar Reversals.
Part 1: Clock cycles that cause the reversals;
• Series 4, Introduction, Causes of the... .
Part 2: Proof Sun novas;
• Series 4, Part 2, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 2B: Proof all stars Nova;
• Series 4, Part 2B, All Stars Nova on ... .
Part 3: The great flood;
• Series 4, Part 3, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 4A: Sea level changes;
• Series 4, Part 4A, The 14C Evidence o... .
Part 4B: Meteors do not cause extinctions;
• Series 4, Part 4B, Causes of the Ice ... .
Part 4C/E: 14C dating Issues;
• Series 4, Part 4E The mass extinction... .
Part 4D: Greenland crater;
• Series 4, Part 4D The Last Ice Age an... .
Part 4F: Earth’s rotation reverses during polar reversal;
• Series 4, Part 4F, The Earths Rotatio... .
Part 4G: Mechanism that creates the Earth’s magnetic field & rotation?;
• Series 4, Part 4G, 2nd Half, Why the ... .
Part 5A: Ways to survive the reversal;
• Series 4, Part 5A, When will the Pole... .
Part 5B: The easy way to survive;
• Series 4, Part 5B, Where to go and ho... .
Part 5C: Most coded secret in the Torah;
• Series 4, Part 5C, The Easy Way to Su... .
Video Series 6. Moses 10 Code Systems:
Part 1: Code systems 1-7;
• Series 6 Part 1, Moses 10 Code System... .
Part 2: Code systems 8-10, #12,068 Embedded in the Torah;
• Series 6 part 2, Moses and the 10 cod... .
Video Series 7. God’s Code System:
Part 1: God’s 11th code system;
• Series 7 part 1, God's Code System, 1... .
Part 2: 12,068 day cycles:
• Series 7, Part 2, God's 11th Code Sys... .
Video Series 8. Abraham & the cave:
Part 1: Why Abraham Sold his Half Sister 2X;
• Series 8, Part 1; Volume I, From Abra... .
Part 2: Coded Names for Mount Sinai & the Technology in the cave;
• Series 8, Part 2, From Abraham to Jacob .
Video Series 9. Joseph & slavery for 11 Tribes:
Part 1: Young Joseph;
• Series 9, Part 1, Vol. II, Joseph was... .
Part 2: Becomes prime minister;
• Series 9, Part 2, From Volume II, Jos... .
Part 3: 11 tribes enslaved;
• Series 9, Part 3, From Volume II, Sla... .
Video Series 10. The Exodus and Finding the Real Mount Sinai: Part 1: the Pharaoh;
• Series 10, Part 1, Egypt just before ... .
Part 2: Moses & the cave;
• Series 10, Part 2, From Volume III; T... .
Part 3: The Altars;
• Series 10, Part 3, From Volume III; F... .
Part 4: The Ark:
• Series 10, Part 4, From Volume III; H... .
Part 5: After Mount Sinai;
• Series 10, Part 5, How to survive the... .
Part 6: The missing 12 tribes:
• Series 10, Part 6, Why did God do thi... .
Video Series 12. How & who Changed the Science:
Part 1: How & Who;
• Series 12, Part 1; How & Who changed ... .
Part 2: Why the Piso’s did it;
• Series 12, Part 2, Why did the Piso's... .
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
of it is factual.
Here's the thing:
We'll see,,,
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.
**Points:
* CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
* There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
* Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are
very impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Bullshit they have
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
But his FORMULA isnt.
**Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty decent
accuracy.
Of course, because if you extend that backwards in time.
problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global
temperatures.
followed by the Mini Ace Age of the late medieval. So what caused the temperature to drop and as it recovers back to what it was.. why is that
a bad thing?
before the mini-Ice age?
the Earth regularly goes through a series of ice ages intermixed with
period of warm global temperatures.. We're in the such a cycle now, and
based on historic trends and data.. we should be expecting increasing
global temperatures. It's happened before.
Yet, not of this is accounted for.. nope.. natural cycles are utterly
ignored and suddenly it's all our fault as if we controlled global
climate even before we existed.
What you have is a correlation.. what has NOT been established is
causality.
there is a correlation does NOT establish causality.
can show the historic causes of global warming are NOT involved it would
seem much more natural to consider it part of the natural cycle. Which
does not mean we shouldn't work to control our pollution but without the scare tactics..
Further are you aware of how much the push to electrify transportation
is causing INCREASED emissions?
Nevermind, the shear cost is utterly prohibitive.
Most families simply can not afford the price of a high end luxury car,
nor do they have access to home charging..
we
also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant
effect.
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen over the past
few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm. This is deeply concerning,
On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2
was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing,
provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2
would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
**You have ZERO idea about such things.
Yet I just described them accurately to you.
This is a closed loop negative feedback system,period.
**Not quite. We do not inhabit a planet with a closed system, though
it can be regarded as 'semi-closed'. We are still open to space. The feedback system you speak of has been overridden by our huge
injection of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere.
The planet has warmed excessively in the past, when CO2 levels were
higher than they are today. As much as 10 degrees C higher, in
fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Coincidentally (or not) CO2 levels were also very high.
As was plant cover and fauna.>
**Yes, along with VERY high average temperatures. High levels of CO2
will do that.
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had
solidified Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by
extensive experimental data and upwards of 100,000 hand
calculations. His theory has never been successfully challenged.
NOT ONCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Bullshit lie!
**Is that so? Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the
present warming trend.
Magnetosphere is down over 30% at present.
**Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the present warming
trend.
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has
been presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been
shown to be quite accurate:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
And in the 1970s our trustrthy scientific comunity were all up in
a lather over the looming Ice age...
**Bullshit. NONE of the planet's climate scientists were saying
such twaddle. It was a Newsweek story. Newsweek is not a scientific
publication of note.
No, it was a multitude of media, liar.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822-300-the-ice-age-that-never-was/
**In the 1970s it was a Newsweek article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
**I suggest that you read your own cite, IN FULL.
he general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects
on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with
a consequent warming trend.[2] The actual increase in this period
was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse
gases as a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in
1968.[3] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public
press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there
was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's
warming effects.[4] In response to such reports, the World
Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a
very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[5]
Which somehow never came...
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn...
**Of course. It was bullshit when it was published by Newsweek and
condemned by climate scientists at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
**I suggest that you read your own cite, IN FULL.
The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects
on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with
a consequent warming trend.[2] The actual increase in this period
was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse
gases as a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in
1968.[3] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public
press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there
was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's
warming effects.[4] In response to such reports, the World
Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a
very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[5]
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2006-pt14/html/CRECB-2006-pt14-Pg19154.htm
From 1895 until the 1930s, the
media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s,
they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s, they
warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global
warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing
climate change fears during the last 100 years--4 times during the
last 100 years--and every time just as hysterical as the time
before.
Here is a quote from the New York Times on fears of an approaching
ice age:
Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24,
1895, edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat, 1895, not 1995.
A front-page article in the October 7, 1912, New York Times,
just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank,
declared that a prominent professor ``Warns Us of an Encroaching
Ice Age.'' The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an
article warning that the ``human race will have to fight for its
existence against the cold.''
An August 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared:
Ice Age Coming Here.
By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the
coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global
warming. This is the 1930s:
America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line
Records a 25-year Rise.
That was in an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large
amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An August 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune
declared:
Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.
The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that
large parts of Europe and Asia would be ``wiped out'' and
Switzerland would be ``entirely obliterated.''
A December 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling
reported that climatologists believed ``the facts of the present
climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would
assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.''
The article also warned that unless Government officials reacted
to the coming catastrophe ``mass deaths by starvation and probably
in anarchy and violence'' would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that ``a major cooling [was] widely considered to be
inevitable.''
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in. Read it.
That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
**Nope. It's proof you moron.
Nope, just more .04% tail wagging the dog froth.
**Then present your alternate hypothesis to the theory published by Arrhenius more than 120 years ago.
If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and
submit it for peer-review.
Jurassic period - the greatest proliferration of flora and fauna
known to earth >
CO2 evel today - 300 ppm
CO2 levek ten - 3,000 ppm.
Case CLOSED!
**Just a reminder: CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today.
Humans were not around. The plants and animals we eat were not
around.
Irrelevant, all that was around THRIVED!
**Except humans.
Try educating yourself.
Oh, want more?
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
enjoy, dickhole.
**Try citing some science you fucking moron, rather than some dodgy
Youtube bullshit.
I bet you can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoMHt4UZZY&list=PLYRAmtDzQomgyo8ht4F6VuJWNpge5OP-M
Video Series 1 on the basic information theory should be seen first
to fully understand the philosophy behind discovering what causes
the polar reversals and ice ages. Video series 4, Part 1B, covers
the most important information for anyone on this planet because I
will fully explain what causes the ice ages and why they happen
immediately after a geomagnetic reversal (Pole shift, polar
reversal). The last time it happened was about 12,000 years age and
it is estimated that only about 30 fertile females survived and all
of us are related to one of them. If you have any questions on any
of the videos, just send your questions to
[email protected] or [email protected] and
they will be answered directly or in a Q&A video in that series.
List of all the video Series’s:
Video Series 1 The Theory of Multidimensional Reality.
Part 1: The two different ways to describe the Universe:
• Series 1, Part 1, The Two Ways to Des... .
Part 2: Defining the Problem. How I found the Clock Cycle in the
Universe;
• Series 1, Part 2; The Secret of the U... .
Part 3: Creation of the Atom and Defining Dimensions;
• Series 1, Part 3.Theory of Multidimen... .
Part 4: Dimensions 5-8. What is Gravity;
• Series 1, Part 4, Theory of Multidime... .
Part 5: What is Light;
• Series 1, Part 5, What is Light the T... .
Part 6: The Subatomic “Particles” and what they Really are;
• Series 1, Part 6, Are we in a Hologra... .
Part 7: Where Quasars get their energy;
• Quasars, Black Holes, are we in a Ho... .
Part 8: The Crisis in Physics;
• Series1, Part 8, There cannot be any ... .
Video Series 2. Creation of the Hebrew Alphabet.
Part 1: The creation model of the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 1, Creation of the Heb... .
Part 2: The science philosophy behind the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 2, The Creation and Fo... .
Part 3: The Three Shapes the Letters Form;
• Series 2, Part 3, The 3 shapes the 22... .
Part 4: Dating the Torah and the Technology;
• Series 2, Part 4, Secret of the Unive... .
Video Series 3. Gravity & time experiments.
Part 1: Field Experiment at Oregon Vortex, Santa Cruz Mystery Spot;
• Series 3, Gravitational Mystery Spots... .
Video Series 4. Causes of the Ice Ages & Polar Reversals.
Part 1: Clock cycles that cause the reversals;
• Series 4, Introduction, Causes of the... .
Part 2: Proof Sun novas;
• Series 4, Part 2, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 2B: Proof all stars Nova;
• Series 4, Part 2B, All Stars Nova on ... .
Part 3: The great flood;
• Series 4, Part 3, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 4A: Sea level changes;
• Series 4, Part 4A, The 14C Evidence o... .
Part 4B: Meteors do not cause extinctions;
• Series 4, Part 4B, Causes of the Ice ... .
Part 4C/E: 14C dating Issues;
• Series 4, Part 4E The mass extinction... .
Part 4D: Greenland crater;
• Series 4, Part 4D The Last Ice Age an... .
Part 4F: Earth’s rotation reverses during polar reversal;
• Series 4, Part 4F, The Earths Rotatio... .
Part 4G: Mechanism that creates the Earth’s magnetic field &
rotation?;
• Series 4, Part 4G, 2nd Half, Why the ... .
Part 5A: Ways to survive the reversal;
• Series 4, Part 5A, When will the Pole... .
Part 5B: The easy way to survive;
• Series 4, Part 5B, Where to go and ho... .
Part 5C: Most coded secret in the Torah;
• Series 4, Part 5C, The Easy Way to Su... .
Video Series 6. Moses 10 Code Systems:
Part 1: Code systems 1-7;
• Series 6 Part 1, Moses 10 Code System... .
Part 2: Code systems 8-10, #12,068 Embedded in the Torah;
• Series 6 part 2, Moses and the 10 cod... .
Video Series 7. God’s Code System:
Part 1: God’s 11th code system;
• Series 7 part 1, God's Code System, 1... .
Part 2: 12,068 day cycles:
• Series 7, Part 2, God's 11th Code Sys... .
Video Series 8. Abraham & the cave:
Part 1: Why Abraham Sold his Half Sister 2X;
• Series 8, Part 1; Volume I, From Abra... .
Part 2: Coded Names for Mount Sinai & the Technology in the cave;
• Series 8, Part 2, From Abraham to Jacob .
Video Series 9. Joseph & slavery for 11 Tribes:
Part 1: Young Joseph;
• Series 9, Part 1, Vol. II, Joseph was... .
Part 2: Becomes prime minister;
• Series 9, Part 2, From Volume II, Jos... .
Part 3: 11 tribes enslaved;
• Series 9, Part 3, From Volume II, Sla... .
Video Series 10. The Exodus and Finding the Real Mount Sinai: Part
1: the Pharaoh;
• Series 10, Part 1, Egypt just before ... .
Part 2: Moses & the cave;
• Series 10, Part 2, From Volume III; T... .
Part 3: The Altars;
• Series 10, Part 3, From Volume III; F... .
Part 4: The Ark:
• Series 10, Part 4, From Volume III; H... .
Part 5: After Mount Sinai;
• Series 10, Part 5, How to survive the... .
Part 6: The missing 12 tribes:
• Series 10, Part 6, Why did God do thi... .
Video Series 12. How & who Changed the Science:
Part 1: How & Who;
• Series 12, Part 1; How & Who changed ... .
Part 2: Why the Piso’s did it;
• Series 12, Part 2, Why did the Piso's... .
**Try to stay on topic.
On 12/04/2024 6:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:20:23 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/04/2024 3:49 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:26:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:05 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:57:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
Ozix <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil Hendry's Chop Shop wrote:
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric >>>>>>>>> gasses.
Nuff said.
The atmosphere is over 99% atomic gases, which have no global >>>>>>>> warming effect whatsoever. So only a small amount of carbon
dioxide punches above its weight.
Utter horseshit!
Present levels of CO2 are in the mid 300ppm range,
**Wrong, moron. Try 425ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Fair enough, still way lower than the Jurassic's 3-4,000 ppm.
**And, once more: It was WAY, WAY hotter back then too.
That's what made it literal PARADISE for plants and animals!
**Just a reminder: Humans were not in existence back then.
Just a reminder, neither were sparrows, mice or crows...so?
**Humans, along with the flora and fauna we eat has evolved under
around 300ppm of CO2. Therefore it would be logical to keep the
status quo, lest we cause some unintended consequences. Like sea
level rise, for instance.
https://www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.html
Early mammals
Dinosaurs may have been the dominant land animals, but they were
not alone. Early mammals were mostly very small herbivores or
insectivores and were not in competition with the larger reptiles. Adelobasileus, a shrew-like animal, had the differentiated ear and
jaw bones of a mammal and dates from the late Triassic.
Researchers have unearthed a 112 million-year-old mammal jaw in
Japan. The jaw shows that mammals from this clade were rapidly
evolving traits that would eventually be found in placental
mammals. Here, an illustration of what the first placental mammal
may have looked like.
Researchers have unearthed a 112 million-year-old mammal jaw in
Japan. The jaw shows that mammals from this clade were rapidly
evolving traits that would eventually be found in placental
mammals. Here, an illustration of what the first placental mammal
may have looked like. (Image credit: CREDIT: Image courtesy of Carl
Buell) In August 2011, scientists in China announced discovery of
Juramaia. This tiny animal of the mid-Jurassic has caused
excitement among scientists because it is clearly a eutherian, an
ancestor of placental mammals, indicating that mammals evolved much
earlier than previously thought.
Nor were the flora and fauna we consume to survive.
So?
**We, along with our sources of nutrition may disappear, if CO2 level
rise too high.
https://www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.html
By the beginning of the Jurassic, plant life had evolved from
Bryophytes, the low-growing mosses and liverworts that lacked
vascular tissue and were confined to swampy moist areas.
Ferns and gingkoes, complete with roots and vascular tissue to move
water and nutrients and a spore system of reproduction, were the
dominant plants of the early Jurassic. During the Jurassic, a new
method of plant reproduction evolved. Gymnosperms, cone-bearing
plants such as conifers, allowed for wind distribution of pollen.
This bisexual reproduction allowed for greater genetic combination
and by the end of the Jurassic, the gymnosperms were widespread.
Nor was NYC, Florida,
London, Bangladesh and many other highly populated places.
I think you have a melancholy for speciation not being identical
through different epochs.
**Nope. I am an homo sapiens sapiens.
Sorry about evolutuon and all that rot...
**Evolution is an observed fact, not "rot".
It's what CO2 in the atmosphere does. It causes warming.
Nope, not even close, that's our solar cycle.
**One thing does not preclude the other. Yes, Solar radiation is
the major driver of climate on this planet, but CO2 is NOT an
insignificant driver. In fact, you mentioned the 'Solar cycle'. You
should examine the most recent Solar cycles, as they have exhibited
historically low levels of activity. Yet the average temperature of
the planet is still rising. Curious, yes?
Not so much, because CO2 is a significant driver of temperatures.
No gas that reresents .04% of our atmosphere is capable of driving
ANY major temperature regimes.
**Ah, I see your problem. You don't understand atmospheric physics.
Study up old chap. Your ignorance is showing.
Sorry for your total leftarded brainwashing - the SUN is the
dominant heating element here, period.
**Never in doubt. Perhaps you may care to explain that, despite the
last couple of Solar cycles being quite low, that the planet is still
warming rapidly?
ONLY the sun is our dominant heat engine, nothing else.
**I NEVER claimed otherwise, but to ignore the influence of CO2 is
a stupid and fatal error.
Its influence is transitory and minimal:
**So you claim, yet every climate scientist on the planet disagrees
with you. Remind us:
What are your climate science credentials that we may trust what you
claim to be true, actually is?
When did you last publish a peer-reviewed climate science paper?
Present your peer-reviewed climate science paper that shows
Arrhenius' theory to be wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
**Gray is dead and has been so for 8 years. Gray's work on global
warming has never been peer-reviewed, as it fell well below
acceptable standards of proper science.
IOW: You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Try harder
next time.
So?As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to
decrease not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a
negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with
such a negative feedback loop.
Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and
forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or
how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From
what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of
study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small
and insignificant amounts of global warming.
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where
he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
**No. The author is long dead you moron.
The author was never
recognised for his work on global warming.
His specialty was in
tropical cyclones, for which he was lauded.
4,000ppm of CO2 will not
only cause an average of around 10 degrees C more temperature
rise (along with consequent sea level rise, etc), but will lead
to health effects in humans. We are not evolved to cope with that
much CO2. We have evolved to cope with around 300ppm of CO2.
Oh no, another LIE!
**Really? The YOU tell me what levels of CO2 humans evolved under.
You tell me what level of CO2 saturation is toxic to humans (in
their present developmental state):
**Answer the fucking question:
Really? The YOU tell me what levels of CO2 humans evolved under.
____________________________________________________________________
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15131068/
On one occasion investigations were carried out while subjects
were breathing room air and on the other while subjects were
breathing air containing 5% CO2, inducing hypercapnia and
stimulating systemic chemoreceptors. During hypercapnic
conditions, as compared with normocapnia, there were significant
increases (P < 0.05) in minute ventilation, end-tidal CO2 and
estimated arterial P(CO2). Furthermore, under hypercapnic
conditions there was an increase in orthostatic tolerance, peak
heart rate and time to peak heart rate during LBNP. The
LBNP-induced increase in calf circumference was significantly
attenuated at -50 mmHg of LBNP in addition to a further 22.3%
reduction in stroke volume under hypercapnic conditions.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Human-Physiological-Tolerance-Time-for-Various-Carbon-Dioxide-Concentrations-and-Acute_tbl2_330688186
https://www.theathletetribe.com/understanding-co2-tolerance-how-to-train/ >>>
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a2c040697c1463607099dd3b408aa5bae48631b4
Human health effects of CO2 have been examined in the scientific
and medical literature as a prerequisite to health risk assessment
for releases of CO2 from CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration
(CT&S) sites. Atmospheric CO2 at ~0.037% (370 ppm) poses no threat
to human health...
**Of course. CO2 levels need to be MUCH higher to cause problems in
humans. Plants are another matter entirely.
Plants create...wait for it...OXYGEN!
More CO2 means more plant food and that means more OXYGEN!
Bit of a self-regulating negative feedback loop then, innit dimmy?
**Not if humans are dumping massive quantities of CO2 into the
atmosphere.
It's no longer regulated. It was sort of self regulating,
prior to the industrial revolution.
Table 2: Commonly Cited Effects of CO2
2-5
CO2 Effects
1% Respiratory rate (RR) ↑ 37%
1.6% V
· ↑ ~100%
2% RR ↑ ~50%; brain blood flow ↑
3% Exercise tolerance ↓ in workers when breathing against
inspiratory & expiratory resistance
5% V
· ↑ ~200%; RR ↑ ~100%, dizziness, HA, confusion, dyspnea
7.2% RR ↑ ~200%, HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea
8-10% Severe HA, dizziness, confusion, dyspnea, sweating, dim
vision 10% Unbearable dyspnea, followed by vomiting,
disorientation, hypertension, & loss of consciousness
You do realize that .04% means NOTHING to humans, not a damned
thing!
**I never claimed otherwise.
Liar.
**Cite where I claimed otherwise you lying shit-for-brains.
far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and
fauna epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
**Sure. And considerably hotter too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Which was spectacular for plant and animal life!
**Not HUMAN animals. And not any of the crops and animals we eat
either.
Different epoch, different fauna and flora,so?
**Read what I wrote.
Read what a fecund and rich epoch it was!
**Read what I wrote moron.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016787859800687
The geological record shows, compared to the present, that the
Jurassic Earth was an exotic world. The climatic processes
operating are illustrated by reference to Late Jurassic
palaeoclimate reconstructions generated on a computer-based General Circulation Model. Throughout the Period, and indeed through much
of the Mesozoic, dense forests grew close to both poles and
experienced months-long daylight.
Ocean deeps were warmer, perhaps by 8°C, than the present. Reefs
grew 10° of latitude further north and south than at the present
time but with corals as a subordinate component. The whole Earth is modelled to have been warmer than now by 5° C to 10° C, causing a
higher atmospheric humidity and greatly enhanced hydrological
cycle. Modelling also suggests that much of the rainfall was
convective in character and focused under the Intertropical
Convergence Zone over the oceans, leaving major desert expanses on
the continents. There is no direct geological evidence for polar
ice sheets which, from model output, are unlikely to have been
present for most of the time because of the high summer
temperatures in these areas. Oxygen isotopic ratios in marine
shells are more negative (i.e. show less 18O enrichment) than
during later times, reflecting an absence of major terrestrial ice
caps which would have stored water enriched with 16O. Localized
mountain glaciers cannot be ruled out, particularly in high
altitude southern polar terrains, but there is no convincing
evidence of short-term and large-scale eustatic changes associated
with major glaciation and deglaciation comparable with those of the Neogene. Model results for the Jurassic do, however, suggest the possibility of upland ice sheets during orbitally induced climatic
minima. During the Jurassic, the world was predominantly warm with
at least four times the present level of atmospheric CO2, and model
outputs for evaporation and precipitation generally conform well
with the known distributions of evaporates, calcretes and other climatically sensitive facies.
**All because CO2 levels were higher than they are today. If we
continue to raise CO2 levels, then we can expect temperatures to
continue rising.
Did you stop believing in evolution too?
**I don't "believe" in evolution.
Then you;re in denial of the walk of terrestrial life from sea to
land, an odd thing to deny...
I ACCEPT the fact of evolution of species on this planet.
No, you just denied it.
**NO, I did not, you lying shit-for-brains. I ACCEPT THE FACT of
evolution. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. Likewise, I don't
"believe" in gravity, electricity, or many other observed facts. They
just are and I accept those things as reality. Evolution of species
is no different.
CO2 is what plants breathe!
**Yep. CO2 suffocates mammals.
Sure does NOT!
**Sure it does you moron. CO2 is a known asphyxiant:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/co2.html
The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, >>>>>>> and soon will.
**Really? Prove it.
Read the charts.
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**Cite a proper scientific document. I don't watch Youtube for my
scientific information.
Davidson is a proper scientist, learn not to be a cunt that plays
shoot the messenger, turdbucket!
**Then cite a proper, peer-reviewed scientific document.
I already have.
**No. You continue to present Youtube videos and discredited, dead scientists as evidence to support your claims.
https://www.amazon.com/Weathermans-Guide-Sun-Ben-Davidson/dp/148358898X
Weatherman's Guide to the Sun: First Edition Paperback – January
16, 2017 by Ben Davidson (Author)
4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars 50 ratings
See all formats and editions
If you have ever wanted to understand the intricate details of how
our world actually works, but didn't want to get an advanced degree
and read thousands of papers, don't worry- we did it for you, and we simplified it to a level that any interested individual can engage.
With hundreds of new studies published on the sun-climate connection
over the last decade, it is imperative that any meteorologist
understand the forces on the sun that cause their model errors and
the unexpected events. This book compiles and simplifies the latest advancements in understanding the sun-earth connection, and the
direction of the field. From weather and climate change to
technological disruptions and earthquakes. Understanding the forces
of our world has never been easier with The Weatherman's Guide to
the Sun.
**If I want to know (more) about the Sun, I just need to ask my
partner. She is a Solar physicist. She has forgotten more about the
Sun than you will ever know.
I don't and
will not obtain scientific information from Youtube videos.
Then you'll remain in blank and endless ignorance.
**Nope. I read scientific documents from credible sources.
Sound data can be disseminated in a variety of formats.
**It can be, but Youtube is not one of them. Youtube is not a
scientific source of note.
In your proof you need to explain how a period of RISING
temperatures (like they are now) can possibly lead to a glacial
period.
The 3/6/12,000 year solar cycle - learn:
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
**As above.
Also, you need to explain how a glacial period can occur, when
temperatures are rising. A glacial period can only occur when
temperatures fall. Pretty simple stuff.
Simple, a solar micronova blasts through our diminished
magnetosphere (down 30% or more now) and leads to a pole shift and
global inundation followed by glaciation as new poles form.
**I see. And just when will this occur? Date please.
The far analytic spectrum says 2046.
**So? Where will this micronova occur? Will it affect our planet in
any way?
At present the north pole has migrated almost to Siberia, the south
pole has broken off creating the south Atlantic anomaly.
And the magnetosphere is down over 30%
And we're right on the cusp of a transition from one of our weakest
solar cycles into a trough.
When that happens the glactic current sheet covers the sun briefly
as flaring goes dormant, pressure builds, subsequently a
catastrophic release of galactic dust and micro-tektites bombard
the solar system and earth is in that path.
You can even read about it in scripture:
https://bigthink.com/the-past/earth-magnetic-field-biblical-stories-ancient-cities-destruction/
**Scripture is not science. It's largely bullshit.
http://www.scripturescholar.com/JoshuasLongDay.htm
Lists of Pole Shifts
Probable Pole shifts evidenced in the Bible starting with the most
recent
In Hezekiah’s days, c. 704 B.C. Going back of the shadow of the sun
(2Ki 20:8-11). In Joshua’s days, c. 1398 B.C. the long day of
Joshua (Josh 10:9-13). In Peleg’s days, c. 2669-2436 B.C., the
earth was divided (Gen 10:25). In Noah’s days, c. 3200 B.C., the
Flood of Noah (Gen 7:17-8:14). On the third day of creation, the
land was divided from the sea (Gen 1:9-10). Pole shift in general
c. 2000 B.C. God answers to Job (Job 38:1:23)
Isaiah 24
King James Version
24 Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste,
and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants
thereof.
2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with
the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her
mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the
lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with
the giver of usury to him.
3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the
Lord hath spoken this word.
4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and
fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because
they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell
therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are
burned, and few men left.
7 The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merryhearted
do sigh.
8 The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice
endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth.
9 They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be
bitter to them that drink it.
10 The city of confusion is broken down: every house is shut up,
that no man may come in.
11 There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened,
the mirth of the land is gone.
12 In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten with destruction.
13 When thus it shall be in the midst of the land among the people,
there shall be as the shaking of an olive tree, and as the gleaning
grapes when the vintage is done.
14 They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty
of the Lord, they shall cry aloud from the sea.
15 Wherefore glorify ye the Lord in the fires, even the name of the
Lord God of Israel in the isles of the sea.
16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even
glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe
unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.
17 Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of
the earth.
18 And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of
the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the
midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from
on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.
19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved,
the earth is moved exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be
removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be
heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall
punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of
the earth upon the earth.
22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered
in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days
shall they be visited.
23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the
Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and
before his ancients gloriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLL0wDljyKUYou are completely deceitful.
**Perhaps, but you are a fucking moron.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw
12,000 Year Cycle
Suspicious0bservers
**As above. Cite peer-reviewed scientific documents.
I already did.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Weatherman_s_Guide_to_the_Sun.html?id=3fMuvwEACAAJ
2018 - Solar-terrestrial physics - 199 pages
"The sun affects the weather, earthquakes, our health and more.
The science of space weather is electromagnetic, and the
discoveries of how it affects our world are incredible and
inspiring. 100s of the most important studies are communicated in
a way you can understand, along with their place in the bigger
picture. This is your guide to the sun."--
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42078263
A great introduction to the dynamics that the Sun and Space
Weather have on our planets conditions, from health to seismic
issues, Davidson, who also runs Space Weather News and the
Youtube Channel Suspicious0bservers, offers a compelling and easy
to read book that details in laymans terms how the sun affects us.
https://observerranch.podia.com/weatherman-s-guide-to-the-sun-3rd-edition >>>
Space weather has become a recognized actor in weather, long-term
climate change, seismicity, technological performance and biology.
This third edition of the literature review covers ~500 of the
most-important studies describing the interactions of earth and
sun, including a new chapter on extreme solar activity and earth's
catastrophe cycle.
Air Force Warns of the Pole Shift, Solar Flare/CME | S0 News
Mar.11.2024
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1040918.pdf
(source document)
ENJOY!
**I am well aware of the ramifications of solar flares. I am alerted
to them, when they are due.
Given the fact that Solar activity is presently at a very low
level, we should be experiencing falling temperatures. We're not.
It's getting hotter. Fast. This is a deeply concerning development.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
we
also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant
effect.
No we don't.
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen over the past
few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm. This is deeply
concerning,
It'd be more concerning if we had slipped right back into a glacial
period.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Given the fact that Solar activity is presently at a very low
level, we should be experiencing falling temperatures. We're not.
It's getting hotter. Fast. This is a deeply concerning development.
Nope.
The sun is sufficiently active, albeit not as much as past cycles.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:06:20 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2
was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing,
provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2
would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
**You have ZERO idea about such things.
Yet I just described them accurately to you.
This is a closed loop negative feedback system,period.
**Not quite. We do not inhabit a planet with a closed system, though
it can be regarded as 'semi-closed'. We are still open to space. The
feedback system you speak of has been overridden by our huge
injection of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere.
The feedback system has not been changed to any significant degree,
ergo the continued temperature regime stuck in recover mode from the
last little ice age.
Humans always do better under warmer conditions.
The planet has warmed excessively in the past, when CO2 levels were
higher than they are today. As much as 10 degrees C higher, in
fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Coincidentally (or not) CO2 levels were also very high.
As was plant cover and fauna.>
**Yes, along with VERY high average temperatures. High levels of CO2
will do that.
But it was not the CO2, not by a long shot.
You conflate emissive feedback with being an agent of total climatic resonance.
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had
solidified Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by
extensive experimental data and upwards of 100,000 hand
calculations. His theory has never been successfully challenged.
NOT ONCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Bullshit lie!
**Is that so? Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the
present warming trend.
Magnetosphere is down over 30% at present.
**Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the present warming
trend.
I just did!
The planet has lost 30% of its protective radiational sunglasses!
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend has
been presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
During the 1980s, more predictions were made, which have been
shown to be quite accurate:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2023/01/17/a-fresh-reading-of-exxons-predictions-of-global-warming-and-climate-change-from-40-years-ago/?sh=3d78f5667840
And in the 1970s our trustrthy scientific comunity were all up in
a lather over the looming Ice age...
**Bullshit. NONE of the planet's climate scientists were saying
such twaddle. It was a Newsweek story. Newsweek is not a scientific
publication of note.
No, it was a multitude of media, liar.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822-300-the-ice-age-that-never-was/
**In the 1970s it was a Newsweek article.
Only ONE was from Newsweek, quit lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
**I suggest that you read your own cite, IN FULL.
I suggest you take the contextual cite for its place in my rebuttal.
he general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects
on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with
a consequent warming trend.[2] The actual increase in this period
was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse
gases as a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in
1968.[3] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public
press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there
was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's
warming effects.[4] In response to such reports, the World
Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a
very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[5]
Which somehow never came...
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn...
**Of course. It was bullshit when it was published by Newsweek and
condemned by climate scientists at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
**I suggest that you read your own cite, IN FULL.
I suggest you take the contextual cite for its place in my rebuttal.
The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects
on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with
a consequent warming trend.[2] The actual increase in this period
was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse
gases as a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in
1968.[3] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public
press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there
was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's
warming effects.[4] In response to such reports, the World
Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a
very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[5]
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2006-pt14/html/CRECB-2006-pt14-Pg19154.htm
From 1895 until the 1930s, the
media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s,
they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s, they
warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global
warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing
climate change fears during the last 100 years--4 times during the
last 100 years--and every time just as hysterical as the time
before.
Here is a quote from the New York Times on fears of an approaching
ice age:
Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24,
1895, edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat, 1895, not 1995.
A front-page article in the October 7, 1912, New York Times,
just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank,
declared that a prominent professor ``Warns Us of an Encroaching
Ice Age.'' The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an
article warning that the ``human race will have to fight for its
existence against the cold.''
An August 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared:
Ice Age Coming Here.
By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the
coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global
warming. This is the 1930s:
America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line
Records a 25-year Rise.
That was in an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large
amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An August 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune
declared:
Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.
The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that
large parts of Europe and Asia would be ``wiped out'' and
Switzerland would be ``entirely obliterated.''
A December 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling
reported that climatologists believed ``the facts of the present
climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would
assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.''
The article also warned that unless Government officials reacted
to the coming catastrophe ``mass deaths by starvation and probably
in anarchy and violence'' would result. In 1975, the New York Times
reported that ``a major cooling [was] widely considered to be
inevitable.''
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
So, the proof is in. Read it.
That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
**Nope. It's proof you moron.
Nope, just more .04% tail wagging the dog froth.
**Then present your alternate hypothesis to the theory published by
Arrhenius more than 120 years ago.
I already have.
Stop playing the moron here.
If you dispute the facts, then publish your own hypothesis and
submit it for peer-review.
Jurassic period - the greatest proliferration of flora and fauna
known to earth >
CO2 evel today - 300 ppm
CO2 levek ten - 3,000 ppm.
Case CLOSED!
**Just a reminder: CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today.
Humans were not around. The plants and animals we eat were not
around.
Irrelevant, all that was around THRIVED!
**Except humans.
Hard to thrive when one does not exist - you see how silly you make
yourself look now?
Try to learn some things from a resource so valued that the CIA went
Try educating yourself.
Oh, want more?
https://www.youtube.com/@Suspicious0bservers
enjoy, dickhole.
**Try citing some science you fucking moron, rather than some dodgy
Youtube bullshit.
I bet you can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoMHt4UZZY&list=PLYRAmtDzQomgyo8ht4F6VuJWNpge5OP-M
Video Series 1 on the basic information theory should be seen first
to fully understand the philosophy behind discovering what causes
the polar reversals and ice ages. Video series 4, Part 1B, covers
the most important information for anyone on this planet because I
will fully explain what causes the ice ages and why they happen
immediately after a geomagnetic reversal (Pole shift, polar
reversal). The last time it happened was about 12,000 years age and
it is estimated that only about 30 fertile females survived and all
of us are related to one of them. If you have any questions on any
of the videos, just send your questions to
[email protected] or [email protected] and
they will be answered directly or in a Q&A video in that series.
List of all the video Series’s:
Video Series 1 The Theory of Multidimensional Reality.
Part 1: The two different ways to describe the Universe:
• Series 1, Part 1, The Two Ways to Des... .
Part 2: Defining the Problem. How I found the Clock Cycle in the
Universe;
• Series 1, Part 2; The Secret of the U... .
Part 3: Creation of the Atom and Defining Dimensions;
• Series 1, Part 3.Theory of Multidimen... .
Part 4: Dimensions 5-8. What is Gravity;
• Series 1, Part 4, Theory of Multidime... .
Part 5: What is Light;
• Series 1, Part 5, What is Light the T... .
Part 6: The Subatomic “Particles” and what they Really are;
• Series 1, Part 6, Are we in a Hologra... .
Part 7: Where Quasars get their energy;
• Quasars, Black Holes, are we in a Ho... .
Part 8: The Crisis in Physics;
• Series1, Part 8, There cannot be any ... .
Video Series 2. Creation of the Hebrew Alphabet.
Part 1: The creation model of the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 1, Creation of the Heb... .
Part 2: The science philosophy behind the Hebrew Alphabet;
• Series 2, Part 2, The Creation and Fo... .
Part 3: The Three Shapes the Letters Form;
• Series 2, Part 3, The 3 shapes the 22... .
Part 4: Dating the Torah and the Technology;
• Series 2, Part 4, Secret of the Unive... .
Video Series 3. Gravity & time experiments.
Part 1: Field Experiment at Oregon Vortex, Santa Cruz Mystery Spot;
• Series 3, Gravitational Mystery Spots... .
Video Series 4. Causes of the Ice Ages & Polar Reversals.
Part 1: Clock cycles that cause the reversals;
• Series 4, Introduction, Causes of the... .
Part 2: Proof Sun novas;
• Series 4, Part 2, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 2B: Proof all stars Nova;
• Series 4, Part 2B, All Stars Nova on ... .
Part 3: The great flood;
• Series 4, Part 3, Causes of the Ice A... .
Part 4A: Sea level changes;
• Series 4, Part 4A, The 14C Evidence o... .
Part 4B: Meteors do not cause extinctions;
• Series 4, Part 4B, Causes of the Ice ... .
Part 4C/E: 14C dating Issues;
• Series 4, Part 4E The mass extinction... .
Part 4D: Greenland crater;
• Series 4, Part 4D The Last Ice Age an... .
Part 4F: Earth’s rotation reverses during polar reversal;
• Series 4, Part 4F, The Earths Rotatio... .
Part 4G: Mechanism that creates the Earth’s magnetic field &
rotation?;
• Series 4, Part 4G, 2nd Half, Why the ... .
Part 5A: Ways to survive the reversal;
• Series 4, Part 5A, When will the Pole... .
Part 5B: The easy way to survive;
• Series 4, Part 5B, Where to go and ho... .
Part 5C: Most coded secret in the Torah;
• Series 4, Part 5C, The Easy Way to Su... .
Video Series 6. Moses 10 Code Systems:
Part 1: Code systems 1-7;
• Series 6 Part 1, Moses 10 Code System... .
Part 2: Code systems 8-10, #12,068 Embedded in the Torah;
• Series 6 part 2, Moses and the 10 cod... .
Video Series 7. God’s Code System:
Part 1: God’s 11th code system;
• Series 7 part 1, God's Code System, 1... .
Part 2: 12,068 day cycles:
• Series 7, Part 2, God's 11th Code Sys... .
Video Series 8. Abraham & the cave:
Part 1: Why Abraham Sold his Half Sister 2X;
• Series 8, Part 1; Volume I, From Abra... .
Part 2: Coded Names for Mount Sinai & the Technology in the cave;
• Series 8, Part 2, From Abraham to Jacob .
Video Series 9. Joseph & slavery for 11 Tribes:
Part 1: Young Joseph;
• Series 9, Part 1, Vol. II, Joseph was... .
Part 2: Becomes prime minister;
• Series 9, Part 2, From Volume II, Jos... .
Part 3: 11 tribes enslaved;
• Series 9, Part 3, From Volume II, Sla... .
Video Series 10. The Exodus and Finding the Real Mount Sinai: Part
1: the Pharaoh;
• Series 10, Part 1, Egypt just before ... .
Part 2: Moses & the cave;
• Series 10, Part 2, From Volume III; T... .
Part 3: The Altars;
• Series 10, Part 3, From Volume III; F... .
Part 4: The Ark:
• Series 10, Part 4, From Volume III; H... .
Part 5: After Mount Sinai;
• Series 10, Part 5, How to survive the... .
Part 6: The missing 12 tribes:
• Series 10, Part 6, Why did God do thi... .
Video Series 12. How & who Changed the Science:
Part 1: How & Who;
• Series 12, Part 1; How & Who changed ... .
Part 2: Why the Piso’s did it;
• Series 12, Part 2, Why did the Piso's... .
**Try to stay on topic.
to him for their disaster scenario planning.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 9:21 pm, Scout wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:Of course, because if you extend that backwards in time.
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it is factual.
Here's the thing:
We'll see,,,
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2
was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing,
provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2
would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had
solidified Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive >>>>>> experimental data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His
theory has never been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.
**Points:
* CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
* There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
* Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are
very impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Bullshit they have
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend
hasbeen presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
But his FORMULA isnt.
**Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty
decent accuracy.
**I'm suggesting that we look forward in time.
. you have a
problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global
temperatures.
**Sure they do.
I refer to you to the Early medieval warming period
followed by the Mini Ace Age of the late medieval. So what caused the
temperature to drop and as it recovers back to what it was.. why is
that a bad thing?
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods
you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity. We know
that the Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and
significant effect. In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm. This
is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is likely to
return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows when).
What global emissions were driving the warming period
before the mini-Ice age?
**Likely changes in Solar activity.
If we expand our data even more we find that
the Earth regularly goes through a series of ice ages intermixed with
period of warm global temperatures.. We're in the such a cycle now,
and based on historic trends and data.. we should be expecting
increasing global temperatures. It's happened before.
**Not so. Given the fact that Solar activity is presently at a very
low level,
That's a lie. While its lower than it has been, it is not at a VERY low level.
we should be experiencing falling temperatures. We're not. It's
getting hotter.
Yep.
Fast.
Another lie. It is increasing at the SAME level since 1980 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_irradiance_and_temperature_1880-2018.jpeg
This is a deeply concerning development.
Only for fools who don't have a clue.
Yet, not of this is accounted for.. nope.. natural cycles are
utterly ignored and suddenly it's all our fault as if we controlled
global climate even before we existed.
WE are causing the present warming trend.
That is far from clear.
It was predicted by Arrhenius more than 120 years ago.Not once has
Arrhenius' theory been successfully challenged.
Pity that his formula is way out.
<reams of endless repetition flushed where it belongs>
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:30:19 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**Then present your alternate hypothesis.
I bet you don't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Not our fault
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.
Climate debate has 'life of its own'
Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.
Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.
It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.
This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he
is an expert in tropical meteorology.
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
is factual.
On 11/04/2024 9:21 pm, Scout wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of >>>>>> it is factual.
Here's the thing:
We'll see,,,
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was >>>>> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided >>>>> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental >>>>> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.
**Points:
* CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
* There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
* Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are very >>> impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Bullshit they have
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
But his FORMULA isnt.
**Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty decent
accuracy.
Of course, because if you extend that backwards in time.
**I'm suggesting that we look forward in time.
. you have a
problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global temperatures.
**Sure they do.
I refer to you to the Early medieval warming period
followed by the Mini Ace Age of the late medieval. So what caused the
temperature to drop and as it recovers back to what it was.. why is that
a bad thing?
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity.
We know that the
Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
However, we also
know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant effect.
On 12/04/2024 9:09 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
we
also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant
effect.
No we don't.
**Yeah, we do. Arrhenius proved it. No one has proven Arrhenius wrong.
On 12/04/2024 9:08 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:06:20 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 >>>>>>> was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing,
provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2
would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
**You have ZERO idea about such things.
Yet I just described them accurately to you.
This is a closed loop negative feedback system,period.
**Not quite. We do not inhabit a planet with a closed system, though
it can be regarded as 'semi-closed'. We are still open to space. The
feedback system you speak of has been overridden by our huge
injection of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere.
The feedback system has not been changed to any significant degree,
ergo the continued temperature regime stuck in recover mode from the
last little ice age.
Humans always do better under warmer conditions.
**Prove it. In your proof, examine how civilisation flourished in the relatively cool, European climate, compared to (say) the warmer equatorial regions.
On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:30:19 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you now admit that CO2
levels have not doubled?
Do you concede that .04% of atmospheric inert gasses is insufficient
to do anything as far as heating?
**Inert gases? Of course. Here is a list of inert gases:
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 12/04/2024 9:09 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
we
also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and
significant effect.
No we don't.
**Yeah, we do. Arrhenius proved it. No one has proven Arrhenius
wrong.
He proved nothing. He advanced a theory. A theory which does not
explain the Medieval Warm Period nor the Mini Ice Age, nor why our
recovery from the Mini Ice age back to the temperatures that existed
prior are not a natural process beyond man's control.
Is in at best suggestive, nothing more. Until we can account for why
climate changed before and can include that into current events we
have little idea of how much of what is going on is purely natures
and how much is a result of our activities.
We're not even outside the historic trend lines. NOTHING shows any
proof that man is the cause of the current global warming, or whether
this global warming would be occurring anyway. See that's why we call
it climate.. because it changes. It always has and always well.
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 12/04/2024 9:08 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:06:20 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. >>>>>>>> None of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that
CO2 was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from
freezing, provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further:
Fourier extended his hypothesis to include the possibility
the more CO2 would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
**You have ZERO idea about such things.
Yet I just described them accurately to you.
This is a closed loop negative feedback system,period.
**Not quite. We do not inhabit a planet with a closed system,
though it can be regarded as 'semi-closed'. We are still open to
space. The feedback system you speak of has been overridden by
our huge injection of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere.
The feedback system has not been changed to any significant degree,
ergo the continued temperature regime stuck in recover mode from
the last little ice age.
Humans always do better under warmer conditions.
**Prove it. In your proof, examine how civilisation flourished in
the relatively cool, European climate, compared to (say) the warmer equatorial regions.
Well, let's see.. while Europe was living in huts in the mud..
Egyptians were raising monuments to the test of time.
When French and English we living in filth and squalor, Rome was
ruling the bulk of the known world.
When Mesopotamina was advancing knowledge and math.. Northerners were barbarians living in filth...
*Yes, along with VERY high average temperatures. High levels of CO2
will do that.
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods
you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity. We know
that the Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant effect.
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm.
This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows when).
**Not so. Given the fact that Solar activity is presently at a very
low level, we should be experiencing falling temperatures. We're not.
It's getting hotter. Fast. This is a deeply concerning development.
**WE are causing the present warming trend. It was predicted by
Arrhenius more than 120 years ago
Excessive CO2 emissions are raising the
temperature of the planet.
To slip right back into a glacial period
requires that temperatures begin falling.
They're rising.
**No. I am stating, unequivocally, that the level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is a significant driver of temperature on this planet.
**The word "likely" indicates that you have no idea. I accept that.
These guys have examined all the known influences on our climate and
have reached the same conclusion that Arrhenius reached more than 120
years ago:
**And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
activity at present.
Negative feedback
**What negative feedback?
At least you understand Solar cycles, unlike the
rest of the morons.
CO2
is highly resonant at several, critical infra red (IR) frequencies.
And it is the resonance at IR that is the big problem with CO2. It's
how CO2 'punches above it's weight' in the atmosphere.
**I'm suggesting that we look forward in time.
High levels of CO2
will do that.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:49:37 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
CO2
is highly resonant at several, critical infra red (IR) frequencies.
And it is the resonance at IR that is the big problem with CO2. It's
how CO2 'punches above it's weight' in the atmosphere.
BULLSHITE!!!
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods
you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity. We know
that the Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
Finally!
Yes, we have a 3/6/12K year solar micronova cycle!
However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and
significant effect.
We absolutely DO NOT know that .04% of CO2 has any effect at all!
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm.
Yes we do, it's called a lagging indicator in a natural cycle back to glaciation, and we NOW these temperatures now are historically on the
low end of that cycle, even with the recent recover to norms.
This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows when).
Won't matter because the solar micronova will realign the continents
and usher in anther glacial epoch.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Excessive CO2 emissions are raising the
temperature of the planet.
Nope, not even slightly!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
On 13/04/2024 12:37 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods
you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity. We
know that the Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this
planet.
Finally!
Yes, we have a 3/6/12K year solar micronova cycle!
However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable
and significant effect.
We absolutely DO NOT know that .04% of CO2 has any effect at all!
**Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm.
Yes we do, it's called a lagging indicator in a natural cycle back
to glaciation, and we NOW these temperatures now are historically
on the low end of that cycle, even with the recent recover to
norms.
**What "natural cycle"?
You need to present evidence of this so-called "natural cycle" you
speak of.
This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows
when).
Won't matter because the solar micronova will realign the continents
and usher in anther glacial epoch.
**When will this alleged "solar micronova" occur? Where will it occur?
On 13/04/2024 1:52 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:49:37 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
CO2
is highly resonant at several, critical infra red (IR) frequencies.
And it is the resonance at IR that is the big problem with CO2.
It's how CO2 'punches above it's weight' in the atmosphere.
BULLSHITE!!!
**Nope.
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:51:42 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 12:37 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods
you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity. We
know that the Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this
planet.
Finally!
Yes, we have a 3/6/12K year solar micronova cycle!
However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable
and significant effect.
We absolutely DO NOT know that .04% of CO2 has any effect at all!
**Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm.
Yes we do, it's called a lagging indicator in a natural cycle back
to glaciation, and we NOW these temperatures now are historically
on the low end of that cycle, even with the recent recover to
norms.
**What "natural cycle"?
Uh...CLIMATE!!!
driver of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages).You need to present evidence of this so-called "natural cycle" you
speak of.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Cycles also play key roles in Earth’s short-term weather and long-term climate. A century ago, Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong
Specifically, he examined how variations in three types of Earth orbital movements affect how much solar radiation (known as insolation) reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere as well as where the insolation reaches. These cyclical orbital movements,which became known as the Milankovitch cycles, cause variations of up to 25 percent in the amount of incoming insolation at Earth’s mid-latitudes (the areas of our planet located between about 30 and 60 degrees north and south of the equator).
The Milankovitch cycles include:
The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity;
The angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital plane, known as obliquity; and
The direction Earth’s axis of rotation is pointed, known as precession.
This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows
when).
Won't matter because the solar micronova will realign the continents
and usher in anther glacial epoch.
**When will this alleged "solar micronova" occur? Where will it occur?
2046
Far eastern Europe into Asia.
The prior one hot North and South America.
On 13/04/2024 12:40 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Excessive CO2 emissions are raising the
temperature of the planet.
Nope, not even slightly!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From
what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of
study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small
and insignificant amounts of global warming.
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where
he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
**No. The DISCREDITED author is dead.
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:52:58 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 12:40 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Excessive CO2 emissions are raising the
temperature of the planet.
Nope, not even slightly!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From
what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of
study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of
human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small
and insignificant amounts of global warming.
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where
he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
**No. The DISCREDITED author is dead.
1. He was never "discredited" - rather the opposite in fact:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
activity at present.
Nope.
Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.
It's down over 30%
On 13/04/2024 8:02 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:52:58 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 12:40 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Excessive CO2 emissions are raising the
temperature of the planet.
Nope, not even slightly!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From
what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of
study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of
human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite
small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where
he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
**No. The DISCREDITED author is dead.
1. He was never "discredited" - rather the opposite in fact:
**Not only has he been dead for many years,
but he was discredited for his dodgy climate science claims when he was alive.
On 13/04/2024 12:48 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
activity at present.
Nope.
Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.
It's down over 30%
**Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
"rapidly diminishing".
That claim is NOT an hypothesis.
You need to construct a proper hypothesis. You have, thus far, failed miserably to do so.
On 13/04/2024 7:56 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:51:42 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 12:37 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming
periods you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar
activity. We know that the Sun is the major driver of
temperatures on this planet.
Finally!
Yes, we have a 3/6/12K year solar micronova cycle!
However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable
and significant effect.
We absolutely DO NOT know that .04% of CO2 has any effect at all!
**Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
**Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to
warm.
Yes we do, it's called a lagging indicator in a natural cycle back
to glaciation, and we NOW these temperatures now are historically
on the low end of that cycle, even with the recent recover to
norms.
**What "natural cycle"?
Uh...CLIMATE!!!
**What "natural cycle"?
You need to present evidence of this so-called "natural cycle" you
speak of.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Cycles also play key roles in Earth’s short-term weather and
long-term climate. A century ago, Serbian scientist Milutin
Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of
changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver
of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering
the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages).
**Indeed. However, CO2 and other GHGs are now overriding the effects
of these alleged cycles.
Specifically, he examined how variations in three types of Earth
orbital movements affect how much solar radiation (known as
insolation) reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere as well as where
the insolation reaches. These cyclical orbital movements, which
became known as the Milankovitch cycles, cause variations of up to
25 percent in the amount of incoming insolation at Earth’s
mid-latitudes (the areas of our planet located between about 30 and
60 degrees north and south of the equator).
The Milankovitch cycles include:
The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity;
The angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital
plane, known as obliquity; and The direction Earth’s axis of
rotation is pointed, known as precession.
**Irrelevant to the influence of GHGs on climate.
This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows
when).
Won't matter because the solar micronova will realign the
continents and usher in anther glacial epoch.
**When will this alleged "solar micronova" occur? Where will it
occur?
2046
Far eastern Europe into Asia.
The prior one hot North and South America.
**Prove it.
**Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
"rapidly diminishing".
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 11/04/2024 9:21 pm, Scout wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
warren wrote
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
None of
it is factual.
Here's the thing:
We'll see,,,
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was >>>>>> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided >>>>>> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the >>>>>> planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified >>>>>> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental >>>>>> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never >>>>>> been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
CO2 levels have actually doubled.
**Points:
* CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
* There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
* Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are
very
impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
Bullshit they have
Until a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen >>>>>> presented, then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
But his FORMULA isnt.
**Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty decent >>>> accuracy.
Of course, because if you extend that backwards in time.
**I'm suggesting that we look forward in time.
Translation: I don't want to look at data which refutes my claims..
. you have a
problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global
temperatures.
**Sure they do.
No they don't. they approximate it.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ousama-Ben-Salha/publication/335336077/figure/fig2/AS:794925952151553@1566536524311/Average-global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-concentration-1880-2014-Source-the.png
You have areas where concentrations are depressed by CO2 is regularly increasing. If there were truly correlated then global temperatures should have decline during those periods. Then you have other areas where the temperatures far exceed what the CO2 would seem to indicate when means you have global warming... without cause.
Further lets remind people of this fundamental principle. Correlation =/= Causality.
Just because you find a correlation does NOT establish it is the cause of something.
Which of course, if we expand the time scale becomes pretty evident as suddenly CO2 and temperatures are not even close.
I refer to you to the Early medieval warming period
followed by the Mini Ace Age of the late medieval. So what caused the
temperature to drop and as it recovers back to what it was.. why is that >>> a bad thing?
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods you
mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity.
Were likely?
also cause by changed in solar activity.
Clearly we can't simply point at CO2 and say "that's the cause".
Indeed I would like to see you present your proof of this change in
"solar activity" and how you know they were the cause then.. but aren't
the cause now?
Na, what it seems like you're doing is taking the data and making
guesses about the causes.
We know that the
Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.
However, we also
know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant effect.
Which remains to be proven.
Will simply note that based on long term history.. the Earth is and has
been in a period of historic global warming... so we can expect to
experience global warming no matter what we do.
We're not even outside the historic trend lines. NOTHING shows any proof
that man is the cause of the current global warming, or whether this
global warming would be occurring anyway. See that's why we call it
climate.. because it changes. It always has and always well.
Refer to Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age.. and now we are
warming again back to temperatures more like what they were before the
Mini Ice Age. Which seems like a natural and perfectly reasonable
process that has nothing do to with us. Otherwise, you're going to have
to explain how our activities were responsible for both of those events,
Meanwhile Correlation =/= Causality
**Not at all. Here's what we see when looking back in time:
"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 12/04/2024 9:08 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:06:20 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. >>>>>>>>> None of it is factual.
**Here's the thing:
Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 >>>>>>>> was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, >>>>>>>> provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 >>>>>>>> would cause the planet to warm excessively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
"excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
self-regulating systems are all about.
**You have ZERO idea about such things.
Yet I just described them accurately to you.
This is a closed loop negative feedback system,period.
**Not quite. We do not inhabit a planet with a closed system, though
it can be regarded as 'semi-closed'. We are still open to space. The
feedback system you speak of has been overridden by our huge
injection of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere.
The feedback system has not been changed to any significant degree,
ergo the continued temperature regime stuck in recover mode from the
last little ice age.
Humans always do better under warmer conditions.
**Prove it. In your proof, examine how civilisation flourished in the
relatively cool, European climate, compared to (say) the warmer
equatorial regions.
Well, let's see.. while Europe was living in huts in the mud.. Egyptians
were raising monuments to the test of time.
When French and English we living in filth and squalor, Rome was ruling
the bulk of the known world.
When Mesopotamina was advancing knowledge and math.. Northerners were barbarians living in filth...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:18:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 12:48 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
activity at present.
Nope.
Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.
It's down over 30%
**Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
"rapidly diminishing".
No, actual scientific measurements are PROVING it:
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/Swarm/Swarm_probes_weakening_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
https://www.science.org/content/article/earths-waning-magnet
That claim is NOT an hypothesis.
No, it's factual synopsis of extant and ongoing changes.
You need to construct a proper hypothesis. You have, thus far, failed
miserably to do so.
You need to quit shape-shifting and obfuscating when trapped by the
facts, it's the mark of a craven, lying coward!
https://www.universetoday.com/156234/the-rapid-changes-were-seeing-with-the-earths-magnetic-field-dont-mean-the-poles-are-about-to-flip-this-is-normal/
This figure from the study shows the team’s reconstruction of the
Earth’s DM over the past 9,000 years. They based their reconstruction
on different prior measurements of the Earth’s DM. The thin black lines show the 95% credible interval of the preferred pfm9k.2 (paleomagnetic
field model) case. Overall, the graph shows that the current weakening
of the magnetic field is a recurring phenomenon
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:15:00 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 7:56 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:51:42 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 12:37 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming
periods you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar
activity. We know that the Sun is the major driver of
temperatures on this planet.
Finally!
Yes, we have a 3/6/12K year solar micronova cycle!
However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable
and significant effect.
We absolutely DO NOT know that .04% of CO2 has any effect at all!
**Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
**Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
Theory is not proof.
In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to
warm.
Yes we do, it's called a lagging indicator in a natural cycle back
to glaciation, and we NOW these temperatures now are historically
on the low end of that cycle, even with the recent recover to
norms.
**What "natural cycle"?
Uh...CLIMATE!!!
**What "natural cycle"?
CLIMATE!
You need to present evidence of this so-called "natural cycle" you
speak of.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Cycles also play key roles in Earth’s short-term weather and
long-term climate. A century ago, Serbian scientist Milutin
Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of
changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver
of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering
the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages).
**Indeed. However, CO2 and other GHGs are now overriding the effects
of these alleged cycles.
Not even close at .04% total concentration, fail.
Specifically, he examined how variations in three types of Earth
orbital movements affect how much solar radiation (known as
insolation) reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere as well as where
the insolation reaches. These cyclical orbital movements, which
became known as the Milankovitch cycles, cause variations of up to
25 percent in the amount of incoming insolation at Earth’s
mid-latitudes (the areas of our planet located between about 30 and
60 degrees north and south of the equator).
The Milankovitch cycles include:
The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity;
The angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital
plane, known as obliquity; and The direction Earth’s axis of
rotation is pointed, known as precession.
**Irrelevant to the influence of GHGs on climate.
Since scapegoated GHGs have a minute impact, partial credit.
This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows
when).
Won't matter because the solar micronova will realign the
continents and usher in anther glacial epoch.
**When will this alleged "solar micronova" occur? Where will it
occur?
2046
Far eastern Europe into Asia.
The prior one hot North and South America.
**Prove it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-superflares-rocked-earth-less-than-10-000-years-ago-and-could-strike-again/
https://www.livescience.com/64964-huge-ancient-solar-storm-hit-earth.html
A gigantic solar storm hit Earth about 2,600 years ago, one about 10 times stronger than any solar storm recorded in the modern day, a new study finds.
These findings suggest that such explosions recur regularly in Earth's history, and could wreak havoc if they were to hit now, given howinvestigate ancient solar activity.
dependent the world has become on electricity.
Now, researchers have found radioactive atoms trapped within ice in Greenland that suggest an enormous proton storm struck Earth in about 660 B.C., one that might dwarf the Carrington Event.
Previous research found that extreme proton storms can generate radioactive atoms of beryllium-10, chlorine-36 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Evidence of such events is detectable in tree rings and ice cores, potentially giving scientists a way to
The scientists examined ice from two core samples taken from Greenland. They noted a spike of radioactive beryllium-10 and chlorine-36 about 2,610 years ago. This matches prior work examining tree rings that suggested a spike of carbon-14 about thesame time. [Photos: Craters Hidden Beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet]
Previous research detected two other ancient proton storms in a similar manner — one happened about A.D. 993-994, and the other about A.D. 774-775. The latter is the largest solar eruption known to date.Communications. Because of this unexpected discovery, the study researchers are concerned that devastating solar storms could hit when we least expect them — and that Earth might not be prepared when the next big one arrives.
Regarding number of high-energy protons, the 660 B.C. and the A.D.
774-775 events are about 10 times larger than the strongest proton
storm seen in the modern day, which occurred in 1956, Muscheler said.
The A.D. 993-994 event was smaller than the other two ancient storms by
about a factor of two to three, he added.
https://www.livescience.com/ancient-solar-storm-solar-minimum
An extremely powerful solar storm pummeled our planet 9,200 years ago, leaving permanent scars on the ice buried deep below Greenland and Antarctica.
A new study of those ancient ice samples has found that this previously unknown storm is one of the strongest outbursts of solar weather ever detected and would have crippled modern communications systems if it had hit Earth today.
But perhaps most surprising, the massive storm appears to have hit during a solar minimum, the point during the sun's 11-year cycle when solar outbursts are typically much less common, according to the study, published Jan. 11 in the journal Nature
"These enormous storms are currently not sufficiently included in risk assessments," study co-author Raimund Muscheler, a geology researcher
at Lund University in Sweden, said in a statement. "It is of the utmost importance to analyze what these events could mean for today's
technology and how we can protect ourselves."
**And yet, it was Europeans who ended ruling the world for centuries.
None of the Equatorial nations managed that.
**Indeed. However, CO2 and other GHGs are now overriding the
effects of these alleged cycles.
Not even close at .04% total concentration, fail.
**You keep making this claim, yet you continue to fail miserably in
proving Arrhenius wrong.
That makes you a failure.
**What "natural cycle"?
Uh...CLIMATE!!!
**What "natural cycle"?
CLIMATE!
**WHAT "natural cycle".
Present your hypothesis.
And once more: An hypothesis is not a bunch of random facts and data.
On 13/04/2024 8:45 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:18:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/04/2024 12:48 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
**And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of
Solar activity at present.
Nope.
Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.
It's down over 30%
**Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
"rapidly diminishing".
No, actual scientific measurements are PROVING it:
**You fucking moron.
YOU are making the claim that the magnetosphere is causing the planet
to warm. YOU need to prove your hypothesis.
Just saying that the magnetosphere has diminished by around 10% does
not explain why the planet is warming.
Present your hypothesis.
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/Swarm/Swarm_probes_weakening_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
https://www.science.org/content/article/earths-waning-magnet
That claim is NOT an hypothesis.
No, it's factual synopsis of extant and ongoing changes.
**It is NOT an hypothesis you moron.
You need to construct a proper hypothesis. You have, thus far,
failed miserably to do so.
You need to quit shape-shifting and obfuscating when trapped by the
facts, it's the mark of a craven, lying coward!
**No. I am simply stating that you have failed miserably to present a
cogent hypothesis to explain the present warming trend.
https://www.universetoday.com/156234/the-rapid-changes-were-seeing-with-the-earths-magnetic-field-dont-mean-the-poles-are-about-to-flip-this-is-normal/
This figure from the study shows the team’s reconstruction of the Earth’s DM over the past 9,000 years. They based their
reconstruction on different prior measurements of the Earth’s DM.
The thin black lines show the 95% credible interval of the
preferred pfm9k.2 (paleomagnetic field model) case. Overall, the
graph shows that the current weakening of the magnetic field is a
recurring phenomenon
**Irrelevant.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:31:56 |
| Calls: | 12,098 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,869 |
