On 11/04/2024 9:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

**YOU claimed that CO2 levels had doubled. Do you now admit that CO2
levels have not doubled?

>
> The Arrhenius formula doesnt come even close to predicting
> the change in global temperatures we have actually seen.

**VERY close indeed. Particularly in light of the technology available
to Arrhenius.

>
>> * 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.

**That would be 'centuries' you moron. You should know that CO2 levels
have been increasing steadily. And further: It was due to visible
pollution during the first half of the 20th century that caused
temperatures to cease rising. When pollution controls were brought into
common use during the early 1970s, that temperatures began rising more
rapidly.

>
>> * 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.

**It gets remarkably close, given the chaotic nature of the climate and
many other effects (like visible pollution) that also have an effect.

>
> You don't need anything more than a calculator to see that.

**You sure do.

>
>>>> 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.

**Then present your alternate hypothesis.

I bet you don't.

>
>>>> 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.

**Sure they do.

>
>>>  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.

**Yes, you do. Until an alternate theory to better explain the present
warming trend, then Arrhenius' theory is the one we use.

>
>>>> 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.

**Yeah, it does. With surprising accuracy.

If you think you know more than Arrhenius, present your alternate
hypothesis.

>
>>>> 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.

**No, I did not. Arrhenius predicted a significant rise in temperatures
after a large CO2 level rise. We have seen just that. AND, temperatures
are still rising. FAST.

However, if you dispute Arrhenius' theory, then present your alternate
hypothesis.

>
>> 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.

**OK. The present your alternate hypothesis.

>
>>>> 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.

**Yes, you really do. Present your alternate hypothesis that explains
the rapid warming noted in the past 100 odd years.

>
>>>  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 does so, with surprising accuracy, given the many other
variables present.

>
> 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>

**You like to remove your more egregious errors. I'll put them back:

You wrote:

"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."

And I responded, pointing out your monumental stupidity:

**CO2 levels have NOT doubled you fucking moron. Arithmetic is not your
strongest ability, is it?

CO2 levels were approximately 285ppm prior to the present warming trend.
CO2 levels are sitting at around 420ppm right now.

Tell me how that is double?

Take your time explaining. Go find a 7 year old to explain basic
arithmetic to you.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

> YOU claimed that CO2 levels had doubled.

And they have.

> Do you now admit that CO2 levels have not doubled?

Nope, because they have and the Arrhenius formula
doesnt come even close to predicting the change in
global temperatures we have actually seen.

>> The Arrhenius formula doesnt come even close to predicting
>> the change in global temperatures we have actually seen.

> VERY close indeed.

Bullshit, even with your cherry picked increase
in atmospheric CO2 level since 1960

> Particularly in light of the technology available to Arrhenius.

Nothing to do with technology. His formula is hopeless.

>>> * 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.

> You should know that CO2 levels have been increasing steadily.

Corse I do, fuckwit.

> And further: It was due to visible pollutionduring the first half of
> the 20th century thatcaused temperatures to cease rising.

BULLSHIT. In fact that's when the Thames
stopped freezing, when the burning of coal
for house heating produced the worst pollution

> When pollution controls were broughtinto common use during the early
> 1970s,

More bullshit.

> that temperatures began rising more rapidly.

Bullshit it did.

>>> * 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.

> It gets remarkably close,

Bullshit it does when you consider the time from
the start of the industrial revolution till now.

> given the chaotic nature of the climate and many othereffects (like
> visible pollution) that also have an effect.

More bullshit.

>> You don't need anything more than a calculator to see that.

> You sure do.

More bullshit. Its trivial to calculate that you need fuck all
change in the atmospheric CO2 level to produce the rise
of just 2C that we might have seen, nothing like the change
in CO2 level that we have actually seen, since the start of
the industrial revolution. 4

>>>>> 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.

> Then present your alternate hypothesis.

Dont need one. ALL I need to do is to rub your
stupid nose in the FACT that the formula doesnt
come even close to predicting the change in
global temperatures we might have seen since
the start of the industrial revolution.

>>>>> 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.

> Sure they do.

BULLSHIT

>>>> 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.

> Yes, you do.

Nope.

> Until an alternate theory to better explain the present warming trend,
> then Arrhenius' theory is the one we use.

Pity that his FORMULA doesnt get within a bulls
roar of predicting the change in global temps
that we might have seen since the start of the
industrial revolution which is when the CO2
level started increasing dramatically.

>>>>> 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.

> Yeah, it does. With surprising accuracy.

Pathetic. Take the increase in the CO2
seen since the industrial revolution got
started, apply that to the formula and
you don't get within a bulls roar of the
2C rise in global temps we migt have
seen in that time.

> If you think you know more than Arrhenius,

Never said that, I JUST if you
take the increase in the CO2
seen since the industrial revolution got
started, apply that to the formula and
you don't get within a bulls roar of the
2C rise in global temps we migt have
seen in that time.

> present your alternate hypothesis.

Dont need one.

>>>>> 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.

> No, I did not.

Yes you did, and have done so again above, repeatedly.

> Arrhenius predicted a significant rise intemperatures after a large CO2
> level rise.

That's not the FORMULA, fuckwit.

> We have seen just that.

Nope, 2C at most.

> AND, temperatures are still rising. FAST.

More bullshit.

<reams of endless repetition and lies flushed where it belongs>

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:59:36 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> AND, temperatures are still rising. FAST.
>
>More bullshit.
>
><reams of endless repetition and lies flushed where it belongs>
>
Thought this funny
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5tUm4Tk7djw
how to deal with climate activists
--
Petzl
Stalin once ripped all the feathers off a live chicken
s a lesson to his followers.
He then set the chicken on the floor a short distance away.
The chicken was bloodied and suffering immensely, yet,
when Stalin began to toss some bits of wheat toward the
chicken it followed him around.
He said to his followers This is how easy it is to govern
stupid people, (like Ordog)

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:l7oimnF1vu3U5@mid.individual.net...
> On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.. you have a
problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global temperatures. 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? What global
emissions were driving the warming period before the mini-Ice age? 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.

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.
You can fine the strangest sorts of correlations but the fact there is a
correlation does NOT establish causality. So until/unless you 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..

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:26:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
> >>> Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> 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.

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 10:57:38 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 11/04/2024 10:01 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:38:17 +1000
> > Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

Higher temperatures correlate positively to human fecundity, true.

> >
> > Most any sentient being would take that lush and benevolent climate
> > regime over our coming ice age.
>
> **What "coming ice age"?

https://www.youtube.com/@dieholdfoundation6705

https://youtu.be/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 research@dieholdfoundation.com or info@dieholdfoundation.com 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... .

>
> 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.
>

Peer-herding is for supplicant toadie slike YOU, clownshow.

Educate yourself now!

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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!
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
Try educating yourself.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:30:19 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 15:30:19 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

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.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he
is an expert in tropical meteorology.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> > That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
>
> **Nope. It's proof you moron.

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.

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.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he
is an expert in tropical meteorology.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:57:38 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> Pretty basic science.

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.

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.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he
is an expert in tropical meteorology.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:26:33 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> CO2 is a known asphyxiant:

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.

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.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he
is an expert in tropical meteorology.

On 12/04/2024 3:49 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:26:33 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
>>>>> Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> 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 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:30:19 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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:

helium (He, 2);
neon (Ne, 10);
argon (Ar, 18);
krypton (Kr, 36);
xenon (Xe, 54);
radon (Rn, 86); and
oganesson (Og, 115).

CO2, however, is NOT an inert gas. Moreover, it is not the chemically
reactive nature of CO2 (though CO2 is RELATIVELY stable) that is a
tissue here. It is the resonant frequency of CO2 that is at issue. 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.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:20:23 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
> >>>>> Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> 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.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?

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.

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.

> >
> >> 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.

On 12/04/2024 6:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:20:23 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
>>>>>>> Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> 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.

>
> 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):

On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:51:14 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 12/04/2024 6:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:20:23 +1000
> > Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/04/2024 9:07 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 07:01:51 +0800
> >>>>>>> Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> 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.

Widly oberblown and not at all in evidence.

Nature is never static.

Odd to see a liberal arguing for status quo though.

>
> >
> > 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.

Bullshite!

We farm and adjust latitudinally.

>
> >
> > 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".

My point indeed.

>
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 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.

Your claims are not factual, at all.

>
> >
> > 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?
>
It's not though, what it has done is only slightly recover from the last
little ice age.

> >
> >>>
> >>> 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:

No, that's lunacy.

There is no "every" to be found. Both sides have reresentation in
climate modeling.

> 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.

Are YOU a climate scientist?

If so where do you publish?

> >
> > 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.

That's unsubstantiated spite.
> IOW: You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Try harder
> next time.

Pot/ketttle there, loser.

On 11/04/2024 9:21 pm, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:l7oimnF1vu3U5@mid.individual.net...
>> On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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. 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, we should be experiencing falling temperatures. We're not. It's
getting hotter. Fast. This is a deeply concerning development.

>
> 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. It was predicted by
Arrhenius more than 120 years ago. Not once has Arrhenius' theory been
successfully challenged. If you think you can, then do so.

>
> What you have is a correlation.. what has NOT been established is
> causality.

**Incorrect. Arrhenius proved that CO2 would cause warming of the
atmosphere more than 120 years ago. He has never been proven to be wrong.

You can fine the strangest sorts of correlations but the fact
> there is a correlation does NOT establish causality.

**Except that it was proven more than 120 years ago.

So until/unless you
> 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..

**No need for "scare tactics". Just the facts.

>
> Further are you aware of how much the push to electrify transportation
> is causing INCREASED emissions?

**Irrelevant to the facts. Excessive CO2 emissions are raising the
temperature of the planet. Whether those emissions are caused by EVs,
ICE vehicles or any one of a dozen other things, it is CO2, Methane of
other GHGs that are the problems.

>
> Nevermind, the shear cost is utterly prohibitive.

**Again: Irrelevant to the fundamental facts.

>
> Most families simply can not afford the price of a high end luxury car,
> nor do they have access to home charging..

**Irrelevant. CO2, methane and other GHGs are causing the planet to warm
dangerously.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:06:20 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:36:10 +1000, Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz>
wrote:

>JTEM, shared his mega confusion
>
>
>> Ördög >> Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely habitable.

It's barely habitable now. Did you know the Sheeple actually RESPIRE?
They all without exception draw in oxygen-laden air and excrete that
vile devil gas CO2. And if this were not bad enough they generate
even more on cremation!!!!
Every brat born is a 80-year font of CO2, spewing, farting, belching
that gas without a care in the world!
Clearly therefore, at the end of the day, fast approaching, the
solution is to cull the birth rate. Yeah man!
But don't leap off that cliff just yet, because there's hope.... in
the form of Gene manipulation whereby the ratio of males to females
born is tilted in favor of males, so gradually reducing the number of
females to give birth.
It will be tested in Africa,
Now isn't that good news? All the denizens of the Global-Warming
Cult can get that haircut and find a REAL job!
And dear Greta can become a working girl.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

In fact it's active enough to have the auroral displays well into the
lower mid latitudes of late.

https://www.abc15.com/news/state/photos-northern-lights-visible-in-arizona-sunday-night
Some Arizonans got the rare opportunity to see the Northern Lights Sunday night.

Experts predicted the lights would be more visible in other parts of the country on April 23, 2023, but as the day went on, it was believed that areas in northern California would be able to see them, too.

pic.twitter.com/eAZdtJY6g1

— NOAA Space Weather (@NWSSWPC) April 23, 2023
However, as pictured by numerous ABC15 viewers across northern Arizona and near the Valley, hues of purple were seen as far south as Arizona!

https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/northern-lights-spotted-in-texas-aurora-borealis-norther-lights-red-pillars-texas-panhandle
AMARILLO, Texas (KVII) - As expected, the Northern lights were able to put on a show for onlookers in the northern Hemisphere Thursday and Friday evenings. The northern lights were even able to be witnessed with long exposure camera shots as far south as the Texas panhandle!

https://patch.com/florida/across-fl/northern-lights-may-be-seen-far-south-fl-month-heres-why

Space weather forecasters expect March to be the best month to view
more frequent aurora borealis in Florida, with green painting the sky.

Which you now KNOW is a consequence of the magnetosphere being down by
over 30%!

https://www.science.org/content/article/earths-waning-magnet
Earth's magnetic field is rapidly getting weaker, and geophysicists
don't know why. The decrease in strength--a startling 10% in the last
160 years--could signal that the magnetic field is starting one of its
sporadic flip-flops. But even if it's just a temporary blip, Earth's
atmosphere may sustain some damage, according to reports here 11
December at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a43412493/nasa-tracking-dent-in-earths-magnetic-field/
Our magnetic field has a dent in it—what ScienceAlert calls a “pothole in space.”

It’s called the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), and it’s not a physical
dent. It’s a region in the skies between South America and Africa where
our magnetic field is weaker than it is around the rest of the planet.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00700-0
Unusual shrinkage and reshaping of Earth’s magnetosphere under a strong
northward interplanetary magnetic field

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/earth-magnetic-field-reversal-affect-climate
vensmark was able to calculate this enhancement in the ionisation rate
to be about 25% at the equatorial surface as the magnetic field
weakened, and over six times higher in the upper atmosphere.

Overall, his model showed a 13% increase in ionisation at sea level around the globe and roughly a doubling at the top of the atmosphere.

Svensmark notes that there appear to be correlations between the flux
of cosmic rays reaching Earth’s atmosphere and the climate, although it
is not entirely clear what mechanism might cause this.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 11/04/2024 9:21 pm, Scout wrote:
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:l7oimnF1vu3U5@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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. 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 12/04/2024 9:09 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

>
>
>> 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.

**That ain't gonna happen. To slip right back into a glacial period
requires that temperatures begin falling.

They're rising.

Fast:

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com