On 12/04/2024 9:19 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> 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.

**That is what I said you moron.

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

On 12/04/2024 9:08 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> 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.

**Prove it. In your proof, examine how civilisation flourished in the
relatively cool, European climate, compared to (say) the warmer
equatorial regions.

>
>
>>>> 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.

**Then what was it?

>
> You conflate emissive feedback with being an agent of total climatic
> resonance.

**No. I am stating, unequivocally, that the level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is a significant driver of temperature on this planet. Too
little CO2 = cooler temperatures. Too much CO2 = warmer temperatures.
Arrhenius proved it. And, despite repeated requests, you have failed to
provide any scientific evidence to show that Arrhenius was wrong.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

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

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/

>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!

**NO, you did not.

Present your alternate hypothesis to explain the present warming trend.

If you require assistance with finding out what an hypothesis entails,
then you need to study some science.

>
>
> The planet has lost 30% of its protective radiational sunglasses!

**Again: MUCH more information is required to put forward an hypothesis.

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

**AGAIN: It was a Newsweek article.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.

**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.
>
> I suggest you take the contextual cite for its place in my rebuttal.

**I suggest that you read your own cite, IN FULL.

>>
>>>
>>> The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects
>>> on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in
>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with
>>> a consequent warming trend.[2] The actual increase in this period
>>> was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse
>>> gases as a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in
>>> 1968.[3] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public
>>> press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there
>>> was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's
>>> warming effects.[4] In response to such reports, the World
>>> Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a
>>> very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[5]
>>>
>>> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2006-pt14/html/CRECB-2006-pt14-Pg19154.htm
>>>
>>> From 1895 until the 1930s, the
>>> media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920s until the 1960s,
>>> they warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s, they
>>> warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global
>>> warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing
>>> climate change fears during the last 100 years--4 times during the
>>> last 100 years--and every time just as hysterical as the time
>>> before.
>>>
>>> Here is a quote from the New York Times on fears of an approaching
>>> ice age:
>>>
>>> Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.
>>>
>>> That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24,
>>> 1895, edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat, 1895, not 1995.
>>> A front-page article in the October 7, 1912, New York Times,
>>> just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank,
>>> declared that a prominent professor ``Warns Us of an Encroaching
>>> Ice Age.'' The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an
>>> article warning that the ``human race will have to fight for its
>>> existence against the cold.''
>>> An August 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared:
>>>
>>> Ice Age Coming Here.
>>>
>>> By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the
>>> coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global
>>> warming. This is the 1930s:
>>>
>>> America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line
>>> Records a 25-year Rise.
>>>
>>> That was in an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
>>> The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large
>>> amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
>>> An August 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune
>>> declared:
>>>
>>> Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.
>>>
>>> The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that
>>> large parts of Europe and Asia would be ``wiped out'' and
>>> Switzerland would be ``entirely obliterated.''
>>> A December 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling
>>> reported that climatologists believed ``the facts of the present
>>> climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would
>>> assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.''
>>> The article also warned that unless Government officials reacted
>>> to the coming catastrophe ``mass deaths by starvation and probably
>>> in anarchy and violence'' would result. In 1975, the New York Times
>>> reported that ``a major cooling [was] widely considered to be
>>> inevitable.''
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the proof is in. Read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not "proof" it's speculation and froth.
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. It's proof you moron.
>>>
>>> Nope, just more .04% tail wagging the dog froth.
>>
>> **Then present your alternate hypothesis to the theory published by
>> Arrhenius more than 120 years ago.
>
> I already have.
>
> Stop playing the moron here.

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz> wrote
>> JTEM wrote
>>> Ördög

>> Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely
>> habitable.

Not going to happen.

> It's barely habitable now.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> 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!!!!

And worse stuff when they rot in their graves.

> Every brat born is a 80-year font of CO2, spewing,farting, belching
> that gas without a care in the world!

Quite a few don't manage to last that long and
kill themselves in various ways well before that.

> Clearly therefore, at the end of the day, fast approaching, the
> solution is to cull the birth rate.

Nope, its fixing itself fine. NOT ONE modern first world
country is even self replacing now if you take out immigration
and that's true of most of the second world too.

Birth rates have been dropping like a stone
except where its already right down in the noise
now EVERYWHERE even in the third world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate#1950_and_2015

> Yeah man!

> But don't leap off that cliff just yet, because there's hope....in the
> form of Gene manipulation whereby the ratio ofmales to females born is
> tilted in favor of males, sogradually reducing the number of females
> to give birth.

Fantasy.

> It will be tested in Africa,

Its India that cares about that, not Africa.

> Now isn't that good news?

Nope, just another silly fantasy.

> 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.

No one is stupid enough to fuck her.

On 12/04/2024 4:54 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> 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

**Yeah, it is. Unlike your dead, discredited scientist, Arrhenius has
NEVER been proven wrong. Not ever.

>
> Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

**Then YOU need to prove Arrhenius wrong.

>
> 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.

**The word "likely" indicates that you have no idea. I accept that.
These guys have examined all the known influences on our climate and
have reached the same conclusion that Arrhenius reached more than 120
years ago:

www.ipcc.ch

Feel free to message them with your alternate hypothesis.

>
>
> Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

**PROVE IT.

>
> 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.

**Then prove it.

>
> 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.

**Prove it.

>
> 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.

**Correct.

>
> 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.

**Prove it.

>
> Negative feedback

**What 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.

**The author is dead. And discredited. And wrong.

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

On 12/04/2024 10:53 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> 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.

**Not a lie, but fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Note how it is lower than at any time in the past 200 years. It is WAY
lower than it was during most of the 20th century. And that is a HUGE
concern. It is likely that Solar activity resume it's normal output.

>
>> we should be experiencing falling temperatures. We're not. It's
>> getting hotter.
>
> Yep.

**I'm please you agree. At least you understand Solar cycles, unlike the
rest of the morons.

>
>> 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

**And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
activity at present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

>
>> This is a deeply concerning development.
>
> Only for fools who don't have a clue.

**Nope. You're wrong.

>
>>>  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.

**Nope. The evidence is clear and unequivocal. ALL the climate
scientists agree on this issue. Even the ones working for fossil fuel
interests.

>
>> 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.

**We'll see.

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

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

Alzheimer Rod' s less lucid raging

/retarded trolls' inputs autoremoved/

>> Ördög
>>>> Ördög
>>> Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely
>>> habitable.
>
> Not going to happen.

Just because you won't be here to see it, it does not mean it ain't
happening. Clearly you could not give a shit about coming generations'
survival chances...just as expected from hard-right wankers like you!
>
> And worse stuff when they rot in their graves.

You'll rot soon enough, Azheimer! Alas that'll be lot's of toxic waste
upcoming in our precious environment. :-P :-P :-P

> Quite a few don't manage to last that long and
> kill themselves in various ways well before that.

WTF are you talking about? Lost the plot yet again, Alzheimer Rod?

> Nope, its fixing itself fine. NOT ONE modern first world
> country is even self replacing now if you take out immigration
> and that's true of most of the second world too.

If you and racist ilk dies out no one will give a shit!
And that is a certainty!
>
> Birth rates have been dropping like a stone
> except where its already right down in the noise
> now EVERYWHERE even in the third world.

YAWN!
>
> Fantasy.

Yeah...your and ilk's inputs on the subject of environment (just like on
most other topics crucially important to future humans) is just
that...ultraconservative, learn resistant rightwinger fantasies.

> No one is stupid enough to fuck her.

Thus pontificates a senile old far incel from Usenet. As if anyone gave
a shit! :-P :-P :-P

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 12/04/2024 10:53 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> 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.

> Not a lie, but fact:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

It isnt sunspots that determine the heating of the earth.

> Note how it is lower than at any time in the past 200 years. It is WAY
> lower than it was during most of the 20th century. And that is a HUGE
> concern. It is likely that Solar activity resume it's normal output.

>>> we should be experiencing falling temperatures. We're not. It's
>>> getting hotter.
>> Yep.

> I'm please you agree.

ONLY that it may be very slightly hotter.

> At least you understand Solar cycles, unlike the rest of the morons.

But you don't understand that sunspots arent what
heat the earth.

>>> 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

> And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
> activity at present.

Sunspots arent what heat the earth.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

>>> This is a deeply concerning development.

>> Only for fools who don't have a clue.

> Nope. You're wrong.

>>>> 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.

> Nope.

Yep.

> The evidence is clear and unequivocal.

More of your lies.

> ALL the climate scientists agree on this issue.

More of your lies.

> Even the ones working for fossil fuel interests.

More of your lies.

>>> 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.

> We'll see.

We have seen when you use the time
since before the industrial revolution
started, not your cherry picked timeframe.

It isnt even clear if the fact that the Thames doesnt
freeze anymore is due to global temperature change
or just due to the fact that FAR more heating of houses
and non houses happens in London now than it used to.

And it is far from clear that what minimal global temperature
change we may have seen is even a bad thing.

Let alone the fact that even if this country was actually
stupid enough to shut down all fossil fuel power generation
and use for transport tomorrow, and wreck the economy
in the process, that that would have any measurable
effect on world atmospheric CO2 levels, let alone any
measurable effect on global temperatures.

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

It's the sun. To prove it, go outside when it's night and see if it the
temperature has changed. ;)

Also note that the energy from the sun that hits the earth is about 100x
the energy release by burning fossil fuels. If humans change anything it
is very, very small to the point of not caring.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Mich wrote:

> FFS - Diebold Foundation videos!
> Junk science grifters who suck in the dumbest hicks.
> You shot yourself in the foot by citing them.
>
> Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>>
>> Try educating yourself.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoMHt4UZZY&list=PLYRAmtDzQomgyo8ht4F6VuJWNpge5OP-M
>>
>> Video Series 1 on the basic information theory should be seen first to
>> fully understand the philosophy behind discovering what causes the polar
>> reversals and ice ages.
>> Video series 4, Part 1B, covers the most important information for
>> anyone on this planet because I will fully explain what causes the ice ages
>> and why they happen immediately after a geomagnetic reversal (Pole shift,
>> polar reversal). The last 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... .
>>
>
>

On 12/04/2024 6:01 pm, D wrote:
> It's the sun. To prove it, go outside when it's night and see if it the
> temperature has changed. ;)

**Duh. No one denies that the Sun is the major driver of temperature on
this planet. However, CO2 and other GHGs contribute to the heating. That
contribution may be much smaller than the Sun's radiation, but it is
significant.

>
> Also note that the energy from the sun that hits the earth is about 100x
> the energy release by burning fossil fuels.

**"100X"? Not even remotely close. I could go and check the numbers, but
I really can't be bothered educating idiots like you. The figure likely
runs to 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more than your figures. At least. Oh,
what the Hell, I'll do the maths for you.

Solar radiation amounts to around 4.4 X 10^16 Watts.

There are around 8 X 10^9 humans on Earth. Each one emits around 100
Watts (less for children and old people, but we'll just call it 100
Watts anyway). That amounts to 8 X 10^11 Watts. Cyclists generate more.
People sitting around a desk generate less.

The amount of energy expended by human activity is around 180TWh. Or:
1.8 X 10^12 Watts.

Therefore, the total energy contributed by humans is 8 X 10^11 + 1.8 X
10^12 = 2.6 X 10^12 Watts.

Therefore the Sun delivers around 31,000 times more energy than humans
generate. A bit more than 100X.

Hey, here's an idea: Let's capture some of that free energy! What a
great idea.

If humans change anything it
> is very, very small to the point of not caring.

**Wrong. CO2, methane and other GHGs are very potent. They are certainly
raising the temperature of the planet. Every climate scientist agrees on
this point.

>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Mich wrote:
>
>> FFS - Diebold Foundation videos!
>> Junk science grifters who suck in the dumbest hicks.
>> You shot yourself in the foot by citing them.
>>
>> Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>>>
>>> Try educating yourself.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoMHt4UZZY&list=PLYRAmtDzQomgyo8ht4F6VuJWNpge5OP-M
>>>
>>> Video Series 1 on the basic information theory should be seen first
>>> to fully understand the philosophy behind discovering what causes the
>>> polar reversals and ice ages.
>>>        Video series 4, Part 1B, covers the most important information
>>> for anyone on this planet because I will fully explain what causes
>>> the ice ages and why they happen immediately after a geomagnetic
>>> reversal (Pole shift, polar reversal). The last 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...  .
>>>
>>
>>

["Followup-To:" header set to aus.politics.]
On 2024-04-07, warren <warreno@charter.net> wrote:
> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
> is factual.
>

You know, if I throw you off a cliff and you start tumbling down to
the ocean, it's only "models" that predict what is going to happen,
not hard proof.

Nice right wing talking point, but it doesn't mean much.

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:l7rheqFgiq4U3@mid.individual.net...
> On 12/04/2024 9:08 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>> 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.
>
> **Prove it. In your proof, examine how civilisation flourished in the
> relatively cool, European climate, compared to (say) the warmer equatorial
> regions.

Well, let's see.. while Europe was living in huts in the mud.. Egyptians
were raising monuments to the test of time.

When French and English we living in filth and squalor, Rome was ruling the
bulk of the known world.

When Mesopotamina was advancing knowledge and math.. Northerners were
barbarians living in filth...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:l7r62vFdo59U6@mid.individual.net...
> 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.

Translation: I don't want to look at data which refutes my claims..

>
> . you have a
>> problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global temperatures.
>
> **Sure they do.

No they don't. they approximate it.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ousama-Ben-Salha/publication/335336077/figure/fig2/AS:794925952151553@1566536524311/Average-global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-concentration-1880-2014-Source-the.png

You have areas where concentrations are depressed by CO2 is regularly
increasing. If there were truly correlated then global temperatures should
have decline during those periods. Then you have other areas where the
temperatures far exceed what the CO2 would seem to indicate when means you
have global warming... without cause.

Further lets remind people of this fundamental principle. Correlation =/=
Causality.

Just because you find a correlation does NOT establish it is the cause of
something.

Which of course, if we expand the time scale becomes pretty evident as
suddenly CO2 and temperatures are not even close.

> I refer to you to the Early medieval warming period
>> followed by the Mini Ace Age of the late medieval. So what caused the
>> temperature to drop and as it recovers back to what it was.. why is that
>> a bad thing?
>
> **"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods you
> mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity.

Were likely? How do you know? How do you know the current heating isn't also
cause by changed in solar activity.

Clearly we can't simply point at CO2 and say "that's the cause".

Indeed I would like to see you present your proof of this change in "solar
activity" and how you know they were the cause then.. but aren't the cause
now?

Na, what it seems like you're doing is taking the data and making guesses
about the causes.

>We know that the
> Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.

> However, we also
> know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and significant effect.

Which remains to be proven.

Will simply note that based on long term history.. the Earth is and has been
in a period of historic global warming... so we can expect to experience
global warming no matter what we do.

We're not even outside the historic trend lines. NOTHING shows any proof
that man is the cause of the current global warming, or whether this global
warming would be occurring anyway. See that's why we call it climate..
because it changes. It always has and always well.

Refer to Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age.. and now we are warming
again back to temperatures more like what they were before the Mini Ice Age.
Which seems like a natural and perfectly reasonable process that has nothing
do to with us. Otherwise, you're going to have to explain how our activities
were responsible for both of those events,

Meanwhile Correlation =/= Causality

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:l7rgduFgiq4U1@mid.individual.net...
> 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.

He proved nothing. He advanced a theory. A theory which does not explain the
Medieval Warm Period nor the Mini Ice Age, nor why our recovery from the
Mini Ice age back to the temperatures that existed prior are not a natural
process beyond man's control.
Is in at best suggestive, nothing more. Until we can account for why climate
changed before and can include that into current events we have little idea
of how much of what is going on is purely natures and how much is a result
of our activities.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:49:37 +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 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:
>
>

LOL, you forgot to include yourself on that list!

Meanwhile...back in realityville:

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

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.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:47:53 -0400
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:l7rgduFgiq4U1@mid.individual.net...
> > 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.
>
> He proved nothing. He advanced a theory. A theory which does not
> explain the Medieval Warm Period nor the Mini Ice Age, nor why our
> recovery from the Mini Ice age back to the temperatures that existed
> prior are not a natural process beyond man's control.
> Is in at best suggestive, nothing more. Until we can account for why
> climate changed before and can include that into current events we
> have little idea of how much of what is going on is purely natures
> and how much is a result of our activities.

Those pesky reptiles of the Jurassic, they all had SUVs and coal plants!

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:42:48 -0400
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

> We're not even outside the historic trend lines. NOTHING shows any
> proof that man is the cause of the current global warming, or whether
> this global warming would be occurring anyway. See that's why we call
> it climate.. because it changes. It always has and always well.
Precisely!

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

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.

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

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:22:08 -0400
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:l7rheqFgiq4U3@mid.individual.net...
> > On 12/04/2024 9:08 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > **Prove it. In your proof, examine how civilisation flourished in
> > the relatively cool, European climate, compared to (say) the warmer
> > equatorial regions.
>
> Well, let's see.. while Europe was living in huts in the mud..
> Egyptians were raising monuments to the test of time.
>
> When French and English we living in filth and squalor, Rome was
> ruling the bulk of the known world.
>
> When Mesopotamina was advancing knowledge and math.. Northerners were
> barbarians living in filth...

And...when Atlantis and Lemuria went under it was as a consequence of
the 12,000 year solar micronova and attendant pole shift and
continental realignment.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.politics.]
> On 2024-04-07, warren <warreno@charter.net> wrote:
> > Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
> > of it is factual.
> >
>
> You know, if I throw you off a cliff and you start tumbling down to
> the ocean, it's only "models" that predict what is going to happen,
> not hard proof.

Incorrect.
> Nice right wing talking point, but it doesn't mean much.

No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.

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

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.

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

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

> *Yes, along with VERY high average temperatures. High levels of CO2
> will do that.

Nope:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/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

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.

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.

L

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

> **"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods
> you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity. We know
> that the Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet.

Finally!

Yes, we have a 3/6/12K year solar micronova cycle!

> However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable and
> significant effect.

We absolutely DO NOT know that .04% of CO2 has any effect at all!

>In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
> over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to warm.

Yes we do, it's called a lagging indicator in a natural cycle back to
glaciation, and we NOW these temperatures now are historically on the
low end of that cycle, even with the recent recover to norms.

> This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
> likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows when).

Won't matter because the solar micronova will realign the continents
and usher in anther glacial epoch.

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

> **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.

It has barely recovered from our last little ice age.

That right here is your proximate cause for concern because it means we
have even less temperate mass going in to this next glacial period.

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

> **WE are causing the present warming trend. It was predicted by
> Arrhenius more than 120 years ago
He was WRONG then and he is WRONG now!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/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

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.

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

> Excessive CO2 emissions are raising the
> temperature of the planet.

Nope, not even slightly!

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

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.

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

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:17:51 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> To slip right back into a glacial period
> requires that temperatures begin falling.
>
> They're rising.

Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.

It's down over 30%

Go on, tell us how a 30% INCREASE in solar radiation reaching through
our protective magnetic layer has less effect on "warming" than CO2:

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 11:18:57 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> > The sun is sufficiently active, albeit not as much as past cycles.
>
> **That is what I said you moron.
Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.

It's down over 30%

Go on, tell us how a 30% INCREASE in solar radiation reaching through
our protective magnetic layer has less effect on "warming" than CO2:

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.