Re: Manmade Global Warming is absolutely unreal

"Dawn Flood" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Yes, but the causes and reasons are a matter of some debate, much less 
whether it's purely artificial.

>  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.

It's also varied significantly over the last 2000 years. So what's your 
point?


> And, so, if you are claiming that CO2 is orthogonal to our World's 
> temperatures, there is nothing really further to discuss.

More like you're seeking an excuse to not discuss the situation and whether 
it is
1) as bad as they claim
2) caused by man
3) controllable by man


>  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?

That climate change is totally natural, and simply because the climate is 
changing does NOT mean it's caused by man or even significantly caused by 
man, much less subject to control by man.

I remember when they were telling us that by 2000 we would be in a new ice 
age....

Sure, we have theories, and even very small scale experiments, but applying 
those to a global system? Just because something works a particular way on a 
very small scale in a control experiment with extremely limited variable 
does NOT mean it's going to scale in the same manner.

Now, don't get me wrong, reducing pollution and our impact on the ecology, 
environment and the rest is a worthy goal, it just might not be nearly as 
time sensitive as some people feel it is, and certainly probably not worth 
wrecking the economy of the world to do so.