Re: Manmade Global Warming is absolutely unreal

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-331656074-1709384161=:31904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT



On Sat, 2 Mar 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:

> On 2/29/2024 11:32 PM, Scout wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> "Dawn Flood" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 2/29/2024 3:27 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> "J Gillis" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 28 Feb 2024, Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> posted some
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Here is the graph of the past 5 million years of global temperature
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Restored.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHWnG_bbgAAhQCI?format=jpg&name=large
>>>>> 
>>>>> Added
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bell, L. (2011). Climate of corruption: Politics and power behind the
>>>>> global warming hoax. Austin, TX: Greenleaf Book Group Press.
>>>> 
>>>> Heck, let's get even more specific.. here's the chart for the last 2,000 
>>>> years. showing that global temperatures have been hotter and colder 
>>>> MULTIPLE times in the last 2000 years. So whether global temperatures are 
>>>> increasing or decreasing all depends on the PERIOD OF TIME you're looking 
>>>> at.
>>>> 
>>>> Further until we can explain how and why the temperatures changed 
>>>> historically we can not establish whether the current change is or is not 
>>>> part of the normal events.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is just Insanity on Parade.  The IPCC uses dozens of climate models 
>>> in their climate forecasts:
>>  >
>>> https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained/
>> 
>> Yep, but doesn't eliminate the fact that global temperatures have been 
>> higher, and lower, before man's activities could possibly have any effect 
>> on them. Until and unless we can explain why global temperatures increased 
>> or declined we have absolutely no idea of whether this current trend is 
>> purely natural, purely unnatural, mostly natural, mostly unnatural... and 
>> so on.
>> 
>> In short we don't have enough information to know what is driving the 
>> change. What we have recently found out is that the Earth is increasing 
>> it's spin rate.  Now that's a simple physics problem. There are two ways to 
>> increase spin on a free object. External forces or a shift in the 
>> location/concentration of mass.
>> 
>> I think we can be sure there is no outside force at work, so that leaves a 
>> shift in mass. We know the core of the Earth is molten iron, A cooler, 
>> denser outer core, and a hotter less dense inner core. If a shift in base 
>> is indeed at work, it would seem likely that some of the cooler, denser 
>> outer court has sunk into the inner core. and likewise displaced some of 
>> the inner core upwards towards the outer core. Now that means an increase 
>> in the rate at which heat from the core can reach the surface, and given 
>> the very thin atmospheric shell, even a minor increase in ground 
>> temperature over time would cause changes in the temperature of the 
>> surface, particularly as feedback loops are activated.
>> 
>> Since it's only very recently that we even had the technology to accurately 
>> monitor the Earth's spin we could find that there are different cycles at 
>> work within the core that cause global warming/cooling trends which until 
>> now have been largely unexplained and subject to much speculation as to the 
>> cause for them.
>> 
>> All we can say is that global warming is taking place but the causes and 
>> reasons are purely a matter of conjecture.
>> 
>>> It's easy "hand waving" to say that all of these climate models are wrong, 
>>> but the fact is that the seminal paper on global warming was published in 
>>> the journal Science in May 1967:
>>> 
>>> https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
>> 
>> Hmmm.. Which of course explains why they were predicting the next ice age 
>> to occur prior to the year 2000.
>> 
>> I will simply note that if you're depending on a paper from 1967 then the 
>> fundamentals of your argument is sadly very much out of date.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> As for our World being warmer in the past, yep, such is true, but mammals, 
>>> especially we H. Sapiens, are recent newcomers.
>> 
>> Perhaps, but certainly not over the last 2,000 years which have seen some 
>> significant and regular changes in global temperatures.
>> 
>> 
>>>  To stay alive, yours and mine's bodies require a mostly constant 
>>> temperature, which means that at 50C, you will last about a day before 
>>> succumbing to "natural causes".
>> 
>> Right which explains how people survive from the deserts of the equator to 
>> the frozen wastelands of the arctic and did so LONG before we had an 
>> advanced technological society.
>> 
>> Apparently humanities ability to survive in a wide range of temperatures is 
>> much higher than you would imply or the fact you seem to suggest the entire 
>> global would reach such a temperature for sustained periods of time.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
> No one in Science doubts the greenhouse effect, not even skeptics.  If not 
> for CO2, our World would be completely frozen.  Of course, temperatures have 
> varied over the last 4.5 billion years of our World's history; no one doubts 
> that, either.  And, so, if you are claiming that CO2 is orthogonal to our 
> World's temperatures, there is nothing really further to discuss.  At night 
> we do not all freeze to death because the land heats the atmosphere above us, 
> which, like a blanket, keeps at least some of the thermal energy from 
> escaping into outer space.
>
> And, so, I guess what is your point here?

I don't understand your argument. No point in continuing.
--8323328-331656074-1709384161=:31904--