Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
is factual.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:13:20 +0200 (CEST), warren
<warreno@charter.net> wrote:

>Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
>is factual.
>
The two videos part 1 & part 2 explain it all factually but humorously
<https://climatecite.com/yes-prime-minister-on-climate-change/>
https://t.ly/h42TC
Yes, Prime Minister on Climate Change
Clips from the popular BBC series the New “Yes, Prime Minister”.
Global Warming, Parts 1 and 2. Surprising, isn’t it!
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
They wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain

On 07 Apr 2024, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> posted some
news:52b61jph1b6451cvj8ttfa8q7ogslo7orm@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:13:20 +0200 (CEST), warren
><warreno@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of
>>it is factual.
>>
> The two videos part 1 & part 2 explain it all factually but humorously
><https://climatecite.com/yes-prime-minister-on-climate-change/>
> https://t.ly/h42TC
> Yes, Prime Minister on Climate Change
> Clips from the popular BBC series the New �Yes, Prime Minister�.
> Global Warming, Parts 1 and 2. Surprising, isn�t it!

I have not seen this series.

"Oh for heaven's sake Humphrey, if it's all such nonsense, why does
everyone believe it?"

"But how can we do something about something that isn't happening?"

"It's much easier to solve an imaginary problem than a real one."

"If we put the right people on it, they'll never agree about anything
important."

LMAO! An absolute gem of a laugher. Well done!

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:03:30 -0000 (UTC), slothe <slothe@netcom.com>
wrote:

>>>
>> The two videos part 1 & part 2 explain it all factually but humorously
>><https://climatecite.com/yes-prime-minister-on-climate-change/>
>> https://t.ly/h42TC
>> Yes, Prime Minister on Climate Change
>> Clips from the popular BBC series the New “Yes, Prime Minister”.
>> Global Warming, Parts 1 and 2. Surprising, isn’t it!
>
>I have not seen this series.
>
>"Oh for heaven's sake Humphrey, if it's all such nonsense, why does
>everyone believe it?"
>
>"But how can we do something about something that isn't happening?"
>
>"It's much easier to solve an imaginary problem than a real one."
>
>"If we put the right people on it, they'll never agree about anything
>important."
>
>LMAO! An absolute gem of a laugher. Well done!
>
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2612376/
Yes, Prime Minister
TV Series
2013
<https://thepiratebay.party/torrent/29742610/Yes_Prime_Minister_Series_(2013_sequel)_H.264_(moviesbyrizzo)>
Torrent (I've not used or downloaded)
--
Petzl
ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" One Nation.
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
“Everything that defines us is now an enemy,
so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity,
they attack gender identity, they attack family identity.
I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother, no.
I must be citizen x, gender x, parent 1, parent 2.
I must be a number, because when I am only a number,
when I no longer have an identity or roots,
then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators.
: - Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni

More insane-moronic septic troll laughter

/Cross-posting to brain-dead septic gun-fucker cretins' newsgroup is
hereby terminated/
/Completely inappropriate, utterly OT crossposting to alt.atheism is
also removed/
> LMAO!

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

> Well done!

You definitely will be!
50+C temperatures in the shade will cook you and denialist ilk nice and
tender.
How about you all book a ticket to Mars on your favourite X-brained
alt-right hero's regularly exploding X-spaceship, labelled as
toxic-human cargo, leaving to the rest of us sane humans this still
liveable planet to manage sustainably?

:-P :-P :-P

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

Petz posts details of his current delirium

/cross-posting to alt.atheism and that toxic-septic subhuman gunfucker
newsgroup is hereby terminated

> Yes, Prime Minister

Hey Petz...hasn't your psychiatric-care nursie (the very one you imagine
to be your Japanese girlfriend) told you yet that there is a huge
difference between comedy-fiction and reality.

> thepiratebay.party
> Torrent (I've not used or downloaded)
>
Bullshit...do not lie again, as we all know you did exactly that!
:-P :-P :-P

NOTE:
Your idiotic extremist and/or Xtian fundy hate propaganda and high
octane Goon-bag fumes induced fantasy sig (that quite often contains
uncredited, therefore clearly plagiarised material pinched from
countless alt-right sources) was flushed down the gurgler, as always,
without reading!

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:53:34 +1000, Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz>
wrote:

>> thepiratebay.party
>> Torrent (I've not used or downloaded)
>>
>Bullshit...do not lie again, as we all know you did exactly that!
>:-P :-P :-P
>
You want to prove that in court for defamation?
Bought the DVD of series and still own it
--
Petzl
Ordog the Armchair communist
https://ibb.co/B2nG6Tb
As Red as a tomato and nutritious as strychnine
he is anti-system and anti-global capitalism.
That is why his No1 purpose in life is to fight
for mass immigration promoted by politicians and big business.
He attacks working class resistance with bricks and eggs
then go listen to a speech by the local MP about
how great diversity is.
He believes he is such a radical

Ördög wrote:

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

How does slapping regressive taxes on "The Bottom" 80 to 99%
of the people, as the rich continue to fly their private jets,
stop the planet from becoming barely habitable?

Why does natural gas kill the polar bears when it's burned
in the U.S. but it's a clean, renewable energy source when
it's burned in Europe?

How come China's more than 3,000 coal plants inch them
closer to Net Zero but the United States is igniting the
atmosphere with 217?

Gwobull Warbling mythology pretends that our CO2 emissions
touched off AGW when they hit 1 billion tons. Well, buttercup,
humans exhale CO2. And the difference in population today
from when emissions hit that 1 billion ton results in more
than TWICE AS MUCH CO2 being exhaled than what your myth
says got it all started.

Are you willing to slaughter most of mankind?

Wait. Of course you are. Because the alternative is to admit
that you're wrong, that you've been stupid. So of course
you'd be willing to murder the vast majority of humanity.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Le 08/04/2024 à 00:13, warren a écrit :
> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
> is factual.
>
Let's have a look at the correlation between each year human emissions
and the corresponding temperature increase. Each point of the diagram
below is a year (temperature variation, emissions).

https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png

If emissions commanded temperatures, the graph should look like a
straight line.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 06:57:50 -0400, JTEM says...

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

I don't plan on being around when our sun goes super-nova anyway, so why worry
now?

You fuckers and your doomer attitudes. Go hide under mommy's skirt and leave
the critical thinking to those who aren't afraid of their own shadows.

=====

March:

* Snowy Norway; Here Comes The Arctic *
* New Report: The Barrier Reef Is Doing Great
* Winter Returns To North America *
* Saudi Arabia Snow *
* Australia To Shiver *
* Greenland At -57.9C (-72.2F) *
* Arctic Sea Ice Extent is higher than 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019 *
* 2018, 2017, 2016, 2014, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 *
* "Don't Plant Yet": Spring Freeze Inbound *
* Heavy Snow Hits Colorado *
* New Cold Wave Enters China *
* Global Cooling Begins This March
* Late-March Arctic Blasts Headed For North America And Europe *
* "Wonderful Snowfall" Hits Southern Spain *
* Another Meter Pounds Newfoundland
* Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery
* Snowstorm Kills 5 In The Alps *
* Western Canada's Cold Snap Cost $180M *
* March Blizzards Bury The West... Much More To Come
* Deadly Avalanches Hit Japan, Alberta And Oregon *
* Portugal Sees "Huge Snowfalls" *
* Arctic Sea Ice Riding Well-Above Average
* Record Snowfall Sweeps Utah Mountains *
* Heavy Snow Hits Saskatchewan And Manitoba *
* Majority Of Record-Highs Set Prior To 1955 *
* Frostbitten Chiefs Fans Need Amputations *
* Record Snow Hits Jackson Hole *
* Late-March Arctic Blast? *
* 'Himalayan Winds' Deliver Record Cold To Delhi *
* Snowy Winter For The Urals *
* More Snow Than Forecast Is Hitting The Alps *
* California Snow Totals Surpass 10 Feet *
* Avalanche Blocks Tunnel In Italy *
* Heavy Snow, Avalanches And Power Outages Hit India *
* Pakistan Freezes *
* South Pole Logs Third-Earliest -60C On Record *
* "Life-Threatening" Blizzards Batter The West *
* Karachi's Coldest March Day In 43 Years *
* Snowstorms Hit Tibet *
* Europe Pounded *
* Snowfall Warnings Issues Across Europe *
* California's Snow Dump Commences *
* Antarctica Suffers Record Cold February Temperature

"Paul Aubrin" <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:4laRN.280732$gq2.74503@fx02.ams4...
> Le 08/04/2024 à 00:13, warren a écrit :
>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
>> is factual.
>>
> Let's have a look at the correlation between each year human emissions and
> the corresponding temperature increase. Each point of the diagram below is
> a year (temperature variation, emissions).
>
> https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
>
> If emissions commanded temperatures, the graph should look like a straight
> line.

Ok.. now let's expand the time scale.. and see if it shows the same
correlation.

https://www.odt.co.nz/sites/default/files/story/2016/04/the_case_for_global_warming_is_in_serious_doubt_6102000384.gif

Hmmmmm... Why did temperatures increase during the early middle ages? Then
why did it drop? Human CO2 emissions?

Let's expand our scale some more..

https://a.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2001Q1/211/Group_projects/group_D_F00/O18_500K.gif

Hmmm... Looks more like a normal regular cycle.. but clearly that can't be
the case because as we would have global warming (and cooling) without any
involvement by man.

Further at these larger scales we seen nothing really out of line with the
natural swings of global temperatures.

So the question is does a correlation establish causality.. No, no, it
doesn't.

Now causality will show a correlation, but not all correlations show a
causality.

Now, that said, it is probably a good idea to try to limit our levels of
pollution, but let's not assert a fake emergency as the reason to do so.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 08:59:35 -0500
AlleyCat <katt@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 06:57:50 -0400, JTEM says...
>
> > > Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely
> > > habitable.
> >
>
> I don't plan on being around when our sun goes super-nova anyway, so
> why worry now?

True, 2046 is a ways off yet...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342656389_The_End_of_The_World_-_2046_solar_reset_nova

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLYm7SZ4Rxg

>
> You fuckers and your doomer attitudes. Go hide under mommy's skirt
> and leave the critical thinking to those who aren't afraid of their
> own shadows.
>
> =====
>
> March:
>
> * Snowy Norway; Here Comes The Arctic *
> * New Report: The Barrier Reef Is Doing Great
> * Winter Returns To North America *
> * Saudi Arabia Snow *
> * Australia To Shiver *
> * Greenland At -57.9C (-72.2F) *
> * Arctic Sea Ice Extent is higher than 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019
> *
> * 2018, 2017, 2016, 2014, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 *
> * "Don't Plant Yet": Spring Freeze Inbound *
> * Heavy Snow Hits Colorado *
> * New Cold Wave Enters China *
> * Global Cooling Begins This March
> * Late-March Arctic Blasts Headed For North America And Europe *
> * "Wonderful Snowfall" Hits Southern Spain *
> * Another Meter Pounds Newfoundland
> * Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery
> * Snowstorm Kills 5 In The Alps *
> * Western Canada's Cold Snap Cost $180M *
> * March Blizzards Bury The West... Much More To Come
> * Deadly Avalanches Hit Japan, Alberta And Oregon *
> * Portugal Sees "Huge Snowfalls" *
> * Arctic Sea Ice Riding Well-Above Average
> * Record Snowfall Sweeps Utah Mountains *
> * Heavy Snow Hits Saskatchewan And Manitoba *
> * Majority Of Record-Highs Set Prior To 1955 *
> * Frostbitten Chiefs Fans Need Amputations *
> * Record Snow Hits Jackson Hole *
> * Late-March Arctic Blast? *
> * 'Himalayan Winds' Deliver Record Cold To Delhi *
> * Snowy Winter For The Urals *
> * More Snow Than Forecast Is Hitting The Alps *
> * California Snow Totals Surpass 10 Feet *
> * Avalanche Blocks Tunnel In Italy *
> * Heavy Snow, Avalanches And Power Outages Hit India *
> * Pakistan Freezes *
> * South Pole Logs Third-Earliest -60C On Record *
> * "Life-Threatening" Blizzards Batter The West *
> * Karachi's Coldest March Day In 43 Years *
> * Snowstorms Hit Tibet *
> * Europe Pounded *
> * Snowfall Warnings Issues Across Europe *
> * California's Snow Dump Commences *
> * Antarctica Suffers Record Cold February Temperature
>
At the most basic level - CO2 is .04% of total atmospheric gasses.

Nuff said.

Le 09/04/2024 à 15:37, Scout a écrit :
> "Paul Aubrin" <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:4laRN.280732$gq2.74503@fx02.ams4...
>> Le 08/04/2024 à 00:13, warren a écrit :
>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.  None
>>> of it
>>> is factual.
>>>
>> Let's have a look at the correlation between each year human emissions
>> and the corresponding temperature increase. Each point of the diagram
>> below is a year (temperature variation, emissions).
>>
>> https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
>>
>> If emissions commanded temperatures, the graph should look like a
>> straight line.
>
> Ok.. now let's expand the time scale.. and see if it shows the same
> correlation.
>
> https://www.odt.co.nz/sites/default/files/story/2016/04/the_case_for_global_warming_is_in_serious_doubt_6102000384.gif

Your answer is irrelevant. Each point in the following diagram is
associated with a calendar year. It links the human CO2 emissions
increase for the year with the temperature increase for the same year.
If emissions command temperatures, all the points should be (more or
less) aligned.
https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png

They are not. CO2 influence on temperatures is not detectable.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 21:02:16 +0200
Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

> Le 09/04/2024 à 15:37, Scout a écrit :
> > "Paul Aubrin" <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote in message
> > news:4laRN.280732$gq2.74503@fx02.ams4...
> >> Le 08/04/2024 à 00:13, warren a écrit :
> >>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
> >>> None of it
> >>> is factual.
> >>>
> >> Let's have a look at the correlation between each year human
> >> emissions and the corresponding temperature increase. Each point
> >> of the diagram below is a year (temperature variation, emissions).
> >>
> >> https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
> >>
> >> If emissions commanded temperatures, the graph should look like a
> >> straight line.
> >
> > Ok.. now let's expand the time scale.. and see if it shows the same
> > correlation.
> >
> > https://www.odt.co.nz/sites/default/files/story/2016/04/the_case_for_global_warming_is_in_serious_doubt_6102000384.gif
> >
>
> Your answer is irrelevant. Each point in the following diagram is
> associated with a calendar year. It links the human CO2 emissions
> increase for the year with the temperature increase for the same year.
> If emissions command temperatures, all the points should be (more or
> less) aligned.
> https://www.cjoint.com/data/NDjhzyOQHgZ_Corr-CO2-variationsTemp.png
>
> They are not. CO2 influence on temperatures is not detectable.
>

As well it ought be - less than .04% of total atmospheric gasses it
remains...

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.

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, far below the
several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna epochs
of the past like the Jurassic.

CO2 is what plants breathe!

The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and soon
will.

You are completely deceitful.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:07:54 -0600, Phil Hendry's Chop shop
<jon@than.ball> 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, far below the
>several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna epochs
>of the past like the Jurassic.
>
>CO2 is what plants breathe!
>
>The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and soon
>will.
>
>You are completely deceitful.
>
But Electric cars are good for "our" enviroment
Not theirs
https://youtu.be/ipOeH7GW0M8?si=vZppPUqPOPHiiQIa
Toxic Cost of Going Green | Unreported World
--
Petzl
Funny thing about getting older...
Your eyesight starts getting weaker but your ability to see through
people's bullshit gets much better.

JTEM, shared his mega confusion

> Ördög >> Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely habitable.
>
> How does slapping regressive taxes on "The Bottom" 80 to 99%
> of the people, as the rich continue to fly their private jets,
> stop the planet from becoming barely habitable?

Whatbout this ...
Whatabout that ...
Whatabout something entirely unrelated???

Not with me, mate!
I either tend to stick closely to the original topic at hand or none if it.

Anywho!
Taxation (and yes, equitable wealth distribution in society is worthy of
discussion, but has with science/reality denialism from very little to
absolutely nothing to do.

Having said that, it is quite clear that as the living environment
changes/deteriorates due to both natural and human activities related
processes the lower social classes will be the first to feel the pain
(in fact, they are already feeling it). But take note, it ain't the taxes.

I can reassure you that your fossil fuel addicted corporate industrial
mob will still be having Champaign-breakfasts with plenty of Russian
Caviar, all of them happily residing whithin the well protected walls of
their luxury resorts, when the rest of humanity will be fighting each
other for the barest necessities of survival due to the hostile turned
environment.

>
> Why does natural gas kill the polar bears when it's burned
> in the U.S.

It would only take you just a few clicks within Google to find the
explanation, so don't be so lazy. Why do you expect others to do your
homework?

But, I give you a couple hints just to get you started:

* Natural gas extraction is an destructive process that more often then
not also releases plenty pollutants into the environment.

* Burning natural gas is anything but "clean". And even if the burning
process yielded nothing but H₂O and CO₂ (which sadly hardly ever the
case), the latter one is a well known greenhouse gas (as was clearly
acknowledged by Exxon-Mobile's in their own study, and that decades
ago). Thus when greenhouse gas accumulation accelerated global warming
destroys the natural habitat of polar bears (Newsflash: they tend to
live on ice and mostly consume cold-water accustomed fish) they will
drown and/or starve to death.

> but it's a clean, renewable energy source when it's burned in Europe?

Burning of fossil fuels for power generation is nowhere "clean"... not
in the US nor in Europe nor elsewhere. That is the reason why many
Europeans protest against all form of fossil fuels based power
generation. The major differences between Europe and the US is in the
degree of the mass brainwashing of the great unwashed by the corporate
industrial establishment (it seems they did a perfect job on you).
Another major difference between Europe and your septic homeland in how
protesters are treated: they aren't necessarily
demonised/beaten-brutalised/imprisoned for years/shot on sight by
inappropriately selected and trained psychopathic thugs wielding badges
of unlimited brutal power of the corporate state.

Now, as to the usage of the word "clean" in relation to the fossil
fuels: This only refers to the other than CO₂ related pollutants
released into the environment during the extraction/burning/waste
storage processes. Thus, there is no such things as "absolutely clean"
fossil fuel, there are only "degrees of cleanliness".

> How come China's more than 3,000 coal plants inch them
> closer to Net Zero but the United States is igniting the
> atmosphere with 217?

So your argumentation all boils down to one '*wrong* makes another one
*right*'? Do you understand the meaning of 'cumulative effects'?
It seems you don't!

BTW the per-capita pollution in the USA is still higher than that of
China or Europe. At least the Chinese acknowledge that what they are
doing has undesirable side effects unlike you septic mob with your
corporate sponsored propaganda saturated science denialism.

> Gwobull Warbling mythology pretends that our CO2 emissions
> touched off AGW when they hit 1 billion tons.

Bingo! Your brain is clearly fucked by all those fossil fuel lobby
propaganda dumps. There is absolutely no point in continuing this
discussion as you are incapable of any rational arguments, and can only
demonstrate your devastating basic science illiteracy.
A typical MAGA cultist you must be, ain't that so?

/snip the remainder of your deluded output/

> So of course
> you'd be willing to murder the vast majority of humanity.

Just go away and have a good lay down. And stop sniffing all that petrol
fumes as that can be the literal end of you!

:-P :-P :-P

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

In alt.global-warming 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.

The situation is functionally the same as a mirror.
The silver of a mirror makes up a tiny faction of the weight of
the mirror. But so what? It still reflects light.
The GHG in the atm reflect heat back down to the ground.
Doesnt matter how much they weigh.

--
Nothing drowns faster than a man thrown into the sea...
except 2 men thrown into the sea together.

On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of it
> is factual.
>

**What is a "climatist"?

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

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> warren wrote

>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None of
>> it is factual.

> What is a "climatist"?

You know what it means

On 10/04/2024 4:44 pm, 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.
>
>> What is a "climatist"?
>
> You know what it means

**Nope. No such term exists in any dictionary I can locate. If you can
locate a dictionary definition, present it.

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

In alt.global-warming 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.
>>
>
> **What is a "climatist"?

Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:

To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and physics
.. Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as courses in
agricultural,.
-- www.dnr.sc.gov

Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!

--
One-Layer Energy Balance Model
While we have measured the feedback factors in terms of the
temperature responses, one could also compute these factors in terms
of the associated radiative forcing. For example, we know from earlier
in the course that the radiative forcing due to CO2 doubling is
roughly 3.7W/m2. Suppose that the increased greenhouse forcing
associated with the water vapor feedback led to an additional downward
long wave radiative flux of 7.4 W/m2 (and let us assume for this
example that the other feedbacks are zero). Then the water vapor
feedback factor would be 7.4/3.7 which is, again, two. The total
downward radiative forcing would be 3.7W/m2 +7.4W/m2 =11.1 W/m2 total
downward and the overall feedback factor would be 11.1/3.7 - 1 = 2!
-- https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

On 10/04/2024 6:14 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In alt.global-warming 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.
>>>
>>
>> **What is a "climatist"?
>
> Ifn yo ast Mr Googil she says:
>
> To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and physics
> . Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as courses in
> agricultural,.
> -- www.dnr.sc.gov
>
> Shee-it. Sommon yo don wan yor sista two marry!
>
>

Searching for the term: 'climatist' elicits only this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climatist

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

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:14:43 +1000
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 17:07:54 -0600, Phil Hendry's Chop shop
> <jon@than.ball> 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, far below the
> >several thousand ppm correlated to the more rich flora and fauna
> >epochs of the past like the Jurassic.
> >
> >CO2 is what plants breathe!
> >
> >The dearth thereof most always correlates to a glacial period, and
> >soon will.
> >
> >You are completely deceitful.
> >
> But Electric cars

NON SEQUITUR!

You LOST the debate, chucklenuts, now fuck off back down your beer tent.