• Re: "Borrowed Time" As We Shatter questionable Temperature Records: "Ex

    From Manjinder Virk@21:1/5 to kensi on Wed Apr 17 05:41:27 2024
    XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns

    kensi <[email protected]d> wrote in news:uvn636$208r5$[email protected]:

    Heat records keep getting shattered:

    https://www.salon.com/

    There are approximately 200 years of relatively accurate environmental
    data.

    Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50
    million years.

    200 years is what percentage of 4,054,000,000?

    0.0000049333991119881596%

    Your "experts" have zero credibility.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to R Kym Horsell on Wed Apr 17 07:44:38 2024
    XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns

    "R Kym Horsell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:uvntbr$27m6$[email protected]...
    In alt.global-warming Manjinder Virk <[email protected]> wrote:
    kensi <[email protected]d> wrote in
    news:uvn636$208r5$[email protected]:
    Heat records keep getting shattered:
    https://www.salon.com/
    There are approximately 200 years of relatively accurate environmental
    data.
    Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50
    million years.
    200 years is what percentage of 4,054,000,000?
    0.0000049333991119881596%
    Your "experts" have zero credibility.

    At least some of them went to highschool and learned you dont need
    to sample most of the population to predict anything.

    Apparently according to armchair exports scientists know nothing because
    in
    the past 1000 years they have only seen 1 part in 10**25 th of it.
    I.e. .000000000000000000000001% .

    Must know nothing then.

    Hillbillies even less.

    So why were these temperatures natural 1000 years ago before the Mini Ice
    Age.. and now they are a man-made disaster?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to Manjinder Virk on Wed Apr 17 07:43:17 2024
    XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns

    "Manjinder Virk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:uvnne6$t171$[email protected]...
    kensi <[email protected]d> wrote in news:uvn636$208r5$[email protected]:

    Heat records keep getting shattered:

    https://www.salon.com/

    There are approximately 200 years of relatively accurate environmental
    data.

    Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years.

    200 years is what percentage of 4,054,000,000?

    0.0000049333991119881596%

    Your "experts" have zero credibility.

    More so, when you look and find it was hotter 1000 years ago than it is
    today.. but somehow it's now all our 'fault'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Unum@21:1/5 to Manjinder Virk on Wed Apr 17 10:20:45 2024
    XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns

    On 4/17/2024 12:41 AM, Manjinder Virk wrote:
    kensi <[email protected]d> wrote in news:uvn636$208r5$[email protected]:

    Heat records keep getting shattered:

    https://www.salon.com/

    There are approximately 200 years of relatively accurate environmental
    data.

    Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years.

    Has absolutely nothing to do with the human-induced global warming
    taking place right now.

    Your "experts" have zero credibility.

    According to some dimwit on the internet with a bogus argument?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lil-man-ball@21:1/5 to Unum on Wed Apr 17 09:51:38 2024
    XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns

    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:20:45 -0500
    Unum <[email protected]> wrote:

    Has absolutely nothing to do with the human-induced global warming
    taking place right now.

    No such is occurring nor has it ever occurred.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm


    Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon
    Currents BBC
    Changes in ocean currents may cause global warning
    By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University
    As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such warming through the late 1940s
    and into the 1970s.

    In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.

    Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full swing.

    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


    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.

    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 quite small and insignificant
    amounts of global warming.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Just Wondering@21:1/5 to Manjinder Virk on Wed Apr 17 16:54:01 2024
    XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns

    On 4/16/2024 11:41 PM, Manjinder Virk wrote:
    kensi <[email protected]d> wrote in news:uvn636$208r5$[email protected]:

    Heat records keep getting shattered:

    https://www.salon.com/

    There are approximately 200 years of relatively accurate environmental
    data.

    Not world-wide data. For example, not throughout all of Africa,
    Antarctica, and Australia. Not across the entire Atlantic and
    Pacific oceans which cover two-thirds of the planet.

    Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years.

    200 years is what percentage of 4,054,000,000?

    0.0000049333991119881596%

    Your "experts" have zero credibility.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Unum@21:1/5 to Lil-man-ball on Wed Apr 17 23:37:22 2024
    XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns

    On 4/17/2024 10:51 AM, Lil-man-ball wrote:
    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:20:45 -0500
    Unum <[email protected]> wrote:

    Has absolutely nothing to do with the human-induced global warming
    taking place right now.

    No such is occurring nor has it ever occurred.

    Obvious lie.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

    Why should anyone care what that nutjob thought about global warming?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)