See also:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
See also: >>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
phony equations? Of course not.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
See also: >>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the >>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do anything to affect climate change.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
See also: >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their >>>phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate >>>>See also: >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their >>>phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do anything to affect climate change.
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzDavid, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the climate alarmists.
says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
See also:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere >increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total >amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
See also:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the >>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere >>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B) >>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in >>that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total >>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the >climate alarmists.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a >better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we needCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use >modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at all to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom I >believe to be correct.
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serioushand column here: https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule anyway. >Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the past. >Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and climate >change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic. You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyChanging the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>> >>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate >>>> >>>>See also:Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the >>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their >>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030 >>>> >>>
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs >>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes >>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of >>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere >>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere >>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B) >>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in >>>that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total >>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the >>climate alarmists.Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
either . . .
Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based opinion.Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a >>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we >>needCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use >>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at all >>to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom >>I
believe to be correct.
correct?
No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serioushand column here: >https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule anyway. >>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the past. >>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic. >You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyChanging the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>> >>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate >>>>> >>>>See also:Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the >>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their >>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030 >>>>> >>>
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs >>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes >>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of >>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While >>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere >>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere >>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B) >>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in >>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total >>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the >>>climate alarmists.
these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>either . . .
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom IDone here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based >opinion.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a >>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we >>>needCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use >>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at all >>>to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom >>>I
believe to be correct.
correct?
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serioushand column here: >>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html >No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule anyway. >>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic. >>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyChanging the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you. >You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of >>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>>either . . .
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>>>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>> >>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate >>>>>> >>>>See also:Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030 >>>>>> >>>
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their >>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs >>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes >>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of >>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While >>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere >>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere >>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B) >>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in >>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total >>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the >>>>climate alarmists.
are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am responding with opinion - entitrely appropriate.You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I >believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based >>opinion.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a >>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we >>>>needCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use >>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at >>>>all
to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists >>>>whom
I
believe to be correct.
correct?
If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serioushand column here: >>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html >>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule >>>>anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the >>>>past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>>>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic. >>>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyAddress the content not your deliberate distraction.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you. >>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an >>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of >>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>>>>either . . .
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>>>>>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate >>>>>>>> >>>>See also:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about >>>>>>>> >>>the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of >>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While >>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere >>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere >>>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B) >>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in >>>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures. >>>>>>>
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total >>>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the >>>>>>climate alarmists.
Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap >deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if youYou are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off
topic?
Don't be such an idiot. Address the topic.Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you shareThis thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am >>responding
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I >>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason >>>>based
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a >>>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, >>>>>>weCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be >>>>>correct?
need
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to >>>>>>use
modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at >>>>>>all
to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists >>>>>>whom
I
believe to be correct.
opinion.
If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to >>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
your opinions with?
No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause seriousYou may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left >>>>>hand column here: >>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule >>>>>>anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the >>>>>>past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>>>>>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to >>>>>>panic.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you. >>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an >>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of >>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>>>either . . .
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>>>>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>> >>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate >>>>>>> >>>>See also:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030 >>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their >>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs >>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes >>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of >>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While >>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere >>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere >>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B) >>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in >>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>>>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total >>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the >>>>>climate alarmists.
Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you shareThis thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am responding >with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I >>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based >>>opinion.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a >>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we >>>>>needCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be >>>>correct?
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use >>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at >>>>>all
to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists >>>>>whom
I
believe to be correct.
If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause seriousYou may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left >>>>hand column here: >>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html >>>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule >>>>>anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the >>>>>past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>>>>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyAddress the content not your deliberate distraction.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you. >>>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an >>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who >>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of >>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>>>>>either . . .
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>>>>>>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
See also:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about >>>>>>>>> >>>the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of >>>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>>>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While >>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere >>>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B) >>>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures. >>>>>>>>
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
climate alarmists.
Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap >>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on yourYou are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you
were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off >>topic?
No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am >>>responding
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I >>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those. >>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to >>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason >>>>>based opinion.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world aCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be >>>>>>correct?
better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, >>>>>>>we
need
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to >>>>>>>use
modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at >>>>>>>all
to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists >>>>>>>whom I believe to be correct.
with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim thatDon't be such an idiot. Address the topic.If you want a scientific discussion then start one.Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
your opinions with?
No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause seriousYou may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left >>>>>>hand column here: >>>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule >>>>>>>anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the >>>>>>>past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>>>>>>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to >>>>>>>panic.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the bullshit. You, as usual, keep trying to change the goalposts. Well stuff off, you keep to your topic for once.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyAddress the content not your deliberate distraction.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an >>>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who >>>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of >>>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>>>>>>either . . .
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do >>>>>>>>>>anything
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) >>>>>>>>>> >>wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
See also:https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What >>>>>>>>>> >>>about
the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into >>>>>>>>>> >>>their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the >>>>>>>>>> >>signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And >>>>>>>>>> >>yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire >>>>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot >>>>>>>>>of
us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>>>>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While >>>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast >>>>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere >>>>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the >>>>>>>>>atmosphere
increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and >>>>>>>>>(B)
that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output >>>>>>>>>in
that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any >>>>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can >>>>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures. >>>>>>>>>
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the >>>>>>>>>total
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by >>>>>>>>the
climate alarmists.
Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap >>>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
temperature changes in Antarctica; and you don't like that so are >bullshitting about anything posted being off topic. Have a look at the >Subject of the thread, Tony.
I never lie, and you can not disprive that. You, however lie all the time.No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on yourYou are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you >>>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off >>>topic?
lies you are unable to respond reasonable. Why do you so consistently
lie, Tony?
Yes, opinions. I responded with opinions. That is normal conversation for all normal people. Your abnormalities are clear.No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am >>>>responding
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I >>>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those. >>>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to >>>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason >>>>>>based opinion.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world >>>>>>>>aCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be >>>>>>>correct?
better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, >>>>>>>>we
need
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to >>>>>>>>use
modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing >>>>>>>>at
all
to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists >>>>>>>>whom I believe to be correct.
with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
relating to data showing a significant heat spike in Antarctica.
Take it any way you wanty - you are still bullshit.I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim thatDon't be such an idiot. Address the topic.If you want a scientific discussion then start one.Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
your opinions with?
you know many scientists who do not believe the climate scientists
quoted in the article
No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause seriousYou may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left >>>>>>>hand column here: >>>>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule >>>>>>>>anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the >>>>>>>>past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>>>>>>>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to >>>>>>>>panic.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tony, you said:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the bullshit. You, as usual, keep trying to change the goalposts. Well >stuff off, you keep to your topic for once.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about >>temperature changes in Antarctica; and you don't like that so are >>bullshitting about anything posted being off topic. Have a look at the >>Subject of the thread, Tony.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an >>>>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who >>>>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of >>>>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>>>>>>>either . . .
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>>>>says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) >>>>>>>>>>> >>wrote:Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
See also:https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What >>>>>>>>>>> >>>about
the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into >>>>>>>>>>> >>>their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the >>>>>>>>>>> >>signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And >>>>>>>>>>> >>yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
anything
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot >>>>>>>>>>of
us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>>>>>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While >>>>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the >>>>>>>>>>atmosphere
increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and >>>>>>>>>>(B)
that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output >>>>>>>>>>in
that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no >>>>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can >>>>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures. >>>>>>>>>>
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the >>>>>>>>>>total
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This >>>>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by >>>>>>>>>the
climate alarmists.
Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap >>>>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
I never lie, and you can not disprive that. You, however lie all the time.
No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on yourYou are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you >>>>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off >>>>topic?
lies you are unable to respond reasonable. Why do you so consistently
lie, Tony?
If you think the words were too long, I apologise, I tried to keep them short >for you.
Yes, opinions. I responded with opinions. That is normal conversation for all >normal people. Your abnormalities are clear.
No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I >>>>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those. >>>>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to >>>>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support? >>>>>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am >>>>>respondingDone here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason >>>>>>>based opinion.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the worldCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be >>>>>>>>correct?
a
better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course,
we
need
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to >>>>>>>>>use
modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing >>>>>>>>>at
all
to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists
whom I believe to be correct.
relating to data showing a significant heat spike in Antarctica.
Take it any way you wanty - you are still bullshit.
I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim thatDon't be such an idiot. Address the topic.If you want a scientific discussion then start one.Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share >>>>your opinions with?
Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
you know many scientists who do not believe the climate scientists
quoted in the article
No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause seriousYou may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left >>>>>>>>hand column here: >>>>>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule >>>>>>>>>anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the
past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and >>>>>>>>>climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to >>>>>>>>>panic.
Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were nothttps://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
facts, they were opinion.
I can only assume that having been called on your
lies you are unable to respond reasonable.
I apologise, I tried to keep them short
for you.
Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
your opinions with?
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are wrong. My opiniolns eclipse yours because mine are honest and yours are politically motivated..
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Tony, you said:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the bullshit. You, as usual, keep trying to change the goalposts. >>Well
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about >>>temperature changes in Antarctica; and you don't like that so are >>>bullshitting about anything posted being off topic. Have a look at the >>>Subject of the thread, Tony.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an >>>>>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who >>>>>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath >>>>>>>>you.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of >>>>>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect >>>>>>>>>either . . .
In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, >>>>>>>>>>>lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
See also:https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can >>>>>>>>>>>>dohttps://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>about
the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>their
phony equations? Of course not.
Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>And
yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.
Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
anything
to affect climate change.
What makes you think we couldn't?
We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate >>>>>>>>>>>entire
species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would >>>>>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot >>>>>>>>>>>of
us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we >>>>>>>>>>>couldn't.
Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around >>>>>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps, >>>>>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. >>>>>>>>>>>While
the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly >>>>>>>>>>>vast
amount of one gas to add to it.
And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the >>>>>>>>>>>atmosphere
has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the >>>>>>>>>>>atmosphere
increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this >>>>>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our >>>>>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and >>>>>>>>>>>(B)
that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>output
in
that time without us noticing somehow.
Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as >>>>>>>>>>>any
other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is >>>>>>>>>>>no
other way for it to leave.
We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>can
cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone >>>>>>>>>>>can
explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being >>>>>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures. >>>>>>>>>>>
So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the >>>>>>>>>>>total
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs >>>>>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. >>>>>>>>>>>This
*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by >>>>>>>>>>the
climate alarmists.
Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap >>>>>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
stuff off, you keep to your topic for once.
I never lie, and you can not disprive that. You, however lie all the time. >>If you think the words were too long, I apologise, I tried to keep them short >>for you.
No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on yourYou are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you >>>>>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off >>>>>topic?
lies you are unable to respond reasonable. Why do you so consistently >>>lie, Tony?
Yes, opinions. I responded with opinions. That is normal conversation for all >>normal people. Your abnormalities are clear.
No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I >>>>>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those. >>>>>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to >>>>>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support? >>>>>>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am >>>>>>respondingDone here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason >>>>>>>>based opinion.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the >>>>>>>>>>worldCould you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be >>>>>>>>>correct?
a
better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of >>>>>>>>>>course,
we
need
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need >>>>>>>>>>to
use
modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing >>>>>>>>>>at
all
to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many >>>>>>>>>>scientists
whom I believe to be correct.
relating to data showing a significant heat spike in Antarctica.
__________
"David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by
the climate alarmists.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the
world a better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans
of course, we need to stop polluting the atmosphere with avoidable
emissions, we need to use modern technology in a safe and sustainable
way. But that has nothing at all to do with climate change in my
opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom I believe to be
correct. There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in
the past. Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable.
but that and climate change may or may not be related - not yet
proven. I prefer proof to panic."
________________
So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were not
facts, they were opinion. Use of modern technologies having nothing to
do with climate change is your opinion, but so it now appears is your >assertion that it is also the opinion of many scientists. The
assertion that the CO2 rise will cause serious climate change is an
opinion. With all those opinions, it is then surprising that you
should say "I prefer proof to panic"
News for you Tony, scientists prefer proof to both opinion and panic -
but it seems your imagination can dream up scientific support for
anything you dream may be true . . .
Your opinions are a waste of time, Tony.
Reality is my staff, and your fantasy.Take it any way you wanty - you are still bullshit.
I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim thatDon't be such an idiot. Address the topic.If you want a scientific discussion then start one.Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share >>>>>your opinions with?
Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
you know many scientists who do not believe the climate scientists
quoted in the article
No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious >>>>>>>>>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule >>>>>>>>>>anyway.You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left >>>>>>>>>hand column here: >>>>>>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in >>>>>>>>>>the
past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that >>>>>>>>>>and
climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to >>>>>>>>>>panic.
Indeed, you prefer your own opinions over anything else . . .
Be happy in your lonely isolation from reality, Tony.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:07:10 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were not
facts, they were opinion. >https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
The sun shines down on the Earth with life-giving light that looks yellow and white as it
crosses the sky, but one day that will change. Dust, gas, and plasma will begin to
accumulate in the suns atmosphere, causing a dimming to a reddish hue. When the sun
darkens almost black from accumulation, the light and solar plasma cannot escape, and
the energetic pressure inside the solar atmosphere grows. The pressure eventually
overcomes the outer shell, erupting in a micronova.
The initial eruption will produce a bright flash of visible, UV and x-ray light, which may
thermally and energetically destroy parts of the biosphere. This is the burning aspect
described by the Buddhist Sermon of the Seven Sons. This phase will not last for very long,
a few minutes at most or even possibly just a few seconds. For the next 4-20 hours (until
the micronova shockwave arrives at Earth), energetic protons and electrons will be
bombarding the upper atmosphere, delivering an incredible excess of electricity.
Ambient atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, and atmospheric pressure cells
connected to the global electric circuit will all be amplified.
When the shockwave arrives, it will be a long impact, hours to days to even weeks. At first
the shockwave will be comprised mostly of plasma, accelerated to high speeds, which
43
would induce electrical disruptions on Earth that would destroy every power grid, create
more-unstable atmospheric electricity conditions, and could even cause a sun-facing
magnetic field collapse, bringing an arc discharge (similar to a magnetar burst) from the
sky to the ground (pictured). It will also begin to bring the isotopes
of the nova.
The bombardment will transition from plasma to dust and other molecules as the second
component of the wave arrives, which will have the isotopes of heavy elements in the
nova attached to the dust, and which will present itself in vastly non-homogenous ways.
If you are facing the sun when the plasma arrives, it may be nighttime when the dust and
heavier components hit. The turning of the Earth through the phases of the shockwave
impact means that the isotope distribution is different across the globe. This is missed in all
dating techniques.
At this point, the dust begins to block out the sky, and it lingers in the inner solar system
while the larger pieces of the shell arrive- the impactors. Silicate material like glass and
congealed/cooled plasma and dust that have agglomerated in the shell expansion will
arrive at the end of the shockwave, and the bombardment here likely plays a key role in
how bad of a disaster the Earth actually faces. If larger pieces hit the Earth, it could turn
a bad event into a cataclysm.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:50:52 -0600, Phil Hendry's Chop shopI am no fan of Mike Hosking and your assumptions are, as always, defective. There are real scientists that argue the opposite to you and none that you have provided that support your grandiose utterances.
<jon@than.ball> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:07:10 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were not
facts, they were opinion. >>https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
The sun shines down on the Earth with life-giving light that looks yellow and >>white as it
crosses the sky, but one day that will change. Dust, gas, and plasma will >>begin to
accumulate in the suns atmosphere, causing a dimming to a reddish hue. When >>the sun
darkens almost black from accumulation, the light and solar plasma cannot >>escape, and
the energetic pressure inside the solar atmosphere grows. The pressure >>eventually
overcomes the outer shell, erupting in a micronova.
The initial eruption will produce a bright flash of visible, UV and x-ray >>light, which may
thermally and energetically destroy parts of the biosphere. This is the >>burning aspect
described by the Buddhist Sermon of the Seven Sons. This phase will not last >>for very long,
a few minutes at most or even possibly just a few seconds. For the next 4-20 >>hours (until
the micronova shockwave arrives at Earth), energetic protons and electrons >>will be
bombarding the upper atmosphere, delivering an incredible excess of >>electricity.
Ambient atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, and atmospheric pressure >>cells
connected to the global electric circuit will all be amplified.
When the shockwave arrives, it will be a long impact, hours to days to even >>weeks. At first
the shockwave will be comprised mostly of plasma, accelerated to high speeds, >>which
43
would induce electrical disruptions on Earth that would destroy every power >>grid, create
more-unstable atmospheric electricity conditions, and could even cause a >>sun-facing
magnetic field collapse, bringing an arc discharge (similar to a magnetar >>burst) from the
sky to the ground (pictured). It will also begin to bring the isotopes
of the nova.
The bombardment will transition from plasma to dust and other molecules as >>the second
component of the wave arrives, which will have the isotopes of heavy elements >>in the
nova attached to the dust, and which will present itself in vastly >>non-homogenous ways.
If you are facing the sun when the plasma arrives, it may be nighttime when >>the dust and
heavier components hit. The turning of the Earth through the phases of the >>shockwave
impact means that the isotope distribution is different across the globe. >>This is missed in all
dating techniques.
At this point, the dust begins to block out the sky, and it lingers in the >>inner solar system
while the larger pieces of the shell arrive- the impactors. Silicate material >>like glass and
congealed/cooled plasma and dust that have agglomerated in the shell >>expansion will
arrive at the end of the shockwave, and the bombardment here likely plays a >>key role in
how bad of a disaster the Earth actually faces. If larger pieces hit the >>Earth, it could turn
a bad event into a cataclysm.
It is an interesting book, Jonathan (assuming that may be your name).
My view is that you are correct that there are a number of things
happening, with different cycles, and not all of them are able to be
affected by mankind in the short term. On a quick flick through it
does not appear to specifically cover climate science, in the sense of
the effect of current activity on longer term trends. A worrying issue
is the moving of the magnetic poles - which may trigger a reversal of >currents around the pacific; if so NZ would be affected by warmer air
coming down from the equator, and the UK would have their climate
affected by water from the Arctic. There are theories that the two
poles switch every few million years, which may also be difficult to
live through, as would a partial re-alignment of the world in relation
to which parts of the world are closest to the sun as earth rotates.
No science is exact, but on balance I believe it offers a lot more
than "reckons" from the likes of Mike Hosking who appears to be avidly >followed by a few posters to this group. In particular, we have had a
lot of real scientists from around the world look at various issues
regarding man-made gasses affecting our atmosphere, with consequential >changes to technology (e.g. refrigerators), and over time a consensus >emerging about other issues, leading to widespread international
agreement about cutting CO2 emissions; with a clear majority in
parliament having supported that position for quite a long time now. >Importantly, we have signed up to international agreements regarding
meeting targets for emission reductions, with clear financial
penalties for not achieving agreed goals, but also an implicit threat
to trade goals should be demonstrably make changes that act against
those goals. Opening up a coal mine for example may lose us trade,
possibly from the EU, UK, USA or even China. So whether persuaded by
the scientists or by short term political wishes (eg Shane Jones
wanting to open a coal mine); we can only hope that he gets the
message (possibly from the Foreign Minister) to pull his head in.
Sadly Luxon is unlikely to show leadership unless it is forced on him,
and Seymour has his own agenda. . . .
In particular, we have had a
lot of real scientists from around the world look at various issues
regarding man-made gasses affecting our atmosphere, with consequential changes to technology (e.g. refrigerators), and over time a consensus emerging about other issues, leading to widespread international
agreement about cutting CO2 emissions; with a clear majority in
parliament having supported that position for quite a long time now.
Reality is my staff, and your fantasy.
You are still providng no more than opinion,
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:49:30 -0600, Lil-man-ball <suck@ra.mentos>More lies - well done you are at least consistent.
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:57:11 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
In particular, we have had a
lot of real scientists from around the world look at various issues
regarding man-made gasses affecting our atmosphere, with consequential
changes to technology (e.g. refrigerators), and over time a consensus
emerging about other issues, leading to widespread international
agreement about cutting CO2 emissions; with a clear majority in
parliament having supported that position for quite a long time now.
Of course, because they can TX us, PROFIT from us, and CONTROL us, all
with a CO2-based HOAX!
You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a willing dupe while
our magnetosphere weakens even more rapidly by the year:
Here's those collapsing magnetosphere proofs again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geomagnetic_axial_dipole_strength.svg
Here's the other 250 year run chart, it's even worse!
https://twitter.com/CPoppino/status/1776384293268590834/photo/1
And:
https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Earth-dipole-moment.jpg
Now we're seeing a 9,000 year run!
Mercy!
This is what happens when the planet regularly loses it's "sun shade".
And the best/worst is yet to come - enjoy!
;-)))))
First it is a good thing mankind can address more than one issue at a
time, but sadly I am not aware of anything that can be done regarding
the earth's magnetic field - do you suggest any actions?
Regarding the CO2 issues, the problem is that the damage to our
atmosphere is trapping heat within the atmosphere.
You may be correct that Mercy is all we can hope for - and that may
take different forms depending on your particular beliefs. The most
common deity of our governing coalition in parliament appears to be
greed, which I doubt will help, although one Minister has an obsession
with mining and burning coal - I can't see how that will help either.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:57:11 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
In particular, we have had a
lot of real scientists from around the world look at various issues
regarding man-made gasses affecting our atmosphere, with consequential
changes to technology (e.g. refrigerators), and over time a consensus
emerging about other issues, leading to widespread international
agreement about cutting CO2 emissions; with a clear majority in
parliament having supported that position for quite a long time now.
Of course, because they can TX us, PROFIT from us, and CONTROL us, all
with a CO2-based HOAX!
You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a willing dupe while
our magnetosphere weakens even more rapidly by the year:
Here's those collapsing magnetosphere proofs again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geomagnetic_axial_dipole_strength.svg
Here's the other 250 year run chart, it's even worse!
https://twitter.com/CPoppino/status/1776384293268590834/photo/1
And:
https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Earth-dipole-moment.jpg
Now we're seeing a 9,000 year run!
Mercy!
This is what happens when the planet regularly loses it's "sun shade".
And the best/worst is yet to come - enjoy!
;-)))))
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:49:30 -0600, Lil-man-ball <suck@ra.mentos>
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:57:11 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
In particular, we have had a
lot of real scientists from around the world look at various issues
regarding man-made gasses affecting our atmosphere, with
consequential changes to technology (e.g. refrigerators), and over
time a consensus emerging about other issues, leading to
widespread international agreement about cutting CO2 emissions;
with a clear majority in parliament having supported that position
for quite a long time now.
Of course, because they can TX us, PROFIT from us, and CONTROL us,
all with a CO2-based HOAX!
You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a willing dupe while
our magnetosphere weakens even more rapidly by the year:
Here's those collapsing magnetosphere proofs again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geomagnetic_axial_dipole_strength.svg
Here's the other 250 year run chart, it's even worse!
https://twitter.com/CPoppino/status/1776384293268590834/photo/1
And:
https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Earth-dipole-moment.jpg
Now we're seeing a 9,000 year run!
Mercy!
This is what happens when the planet regularly loses it's "sun
shade". And the best/worst is yet to come - enjoy!
;-)))))
First it is a good thing mankind can address more than one issue at a
time, but sadly I am not aware of anything that can be done regarding
the earth's magnetic field - do you suggest any actions?
Regarding the CO2 issues, the problem is that the damage to our
atmosphere is trapping heat within the atmosphere.
You may be correct that Mercy is all we can hope for - and that may
take different forms depending on your particular beliefs. The most
common deity of our governing coalition in parliament appears to be
greed, which I doubt will help, although one Minister has an obsession
with mining and burning coal - I can't see how that will help either.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:16:04 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,843 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
