T
The Natural Philosopher
Guest
On 16/02/2022 22:18, Vir Campestris wrote:
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
OT: \\\"Global Warming\\\" scam - carbon not responsible: finally the evidence!...
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:30 PM UTC+11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
They weren\'t. Neanderthals don\'t ever seem to have shown up in Africa. Denisovians didn\'t even get as close as Israel.
> Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
Climate change is is about climate. Socialism is about social organisation.. Socialists could be expected to take a dim view of capitalists digging up fossil carbon and selling to be burned as fuel when this happens to wreck the environment for everybody but climate science is just about way that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere influences the climate, which isn\'t any kind of political fact. The scientists involved would come exactly the same conclusion if there weren\'t any political implications.
The capitalists digging up the fossil carbon are happy to lie about the subject in all sorts of different ways in effort to keep on making money out of it for a bit longer, but only gullible twits imagine that they aren\'t lying.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
They weren\'t. Neanderthals don\'t ever seem to have shown up in Africa. Denisovians didn\'t even get as close as Israel.
> Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
Climate change is is about climate. Socialism is about social organisation.. Socialists could be expected to take a dim view of capitalists digging up fossil carbon and selling to be burned as fuel when this happens to wreck the environment for everybody but climate science is just about way that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere influences the climate, which isn\'t any kind of political fact. The scientists involved would come exactly the same conclusion if there weren\'t any political implications.
The capitalists digging up the fossil carbon are happy to lie about the subject in all sorts of different ways in effort to keep on making money out of it for a bit longer, but only gullible twits imagine that they aren\'t lying.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
D
David Brown
Guest
On 17/02/2022 10:56, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
You are talking about different things here.
According to current best hypotheses, the first humanoids to move out of
Africa were Homo Erectus, around 2 million years ago. As different
parts of the populations became more isolated in different regions of
the world, they evolved and we got Neanderthals in Europe, Denisovans in
Asia, and no doubt many more - fossil remains never give a complete
picture. Later migrations of Homo Sapiens from Africa led to
intermixing in different parts of the world.
The Neanderthals were never (AFAWK) in Africa. But they are nonetheless
descendants of sub-Saharan Africans.
Europeans typically have something like 1 - 5% of their genes from
Neanderthals, and Asians have a mix from Denisovians. But we are all
still descended from sub-Saharan Africans, though every line of ancestry.
You are talking about different things here.
According to current best hypotheses, the first humanoids to move out of
Africa were Homo Erectus, around 2 million years ago. As different
parts of the populations became more isolated in different regions of
the world, they evolved and we got Neanderthals in Europe, Denisovans in
Asia, and no doubt many more - fossil remains never give a complete
picture. Later migrations of Homo Sapiens from Africa led to
intermixing in different parts of the world.
The Neanderthals were never (AFAWK) in Africa. But they are nonetheless
descendants of sub-Saharan Africans.
Europeans typically have something like 1 - 5% of their genes from
Neanderthals, and Asians have a mix from Denisovians. But we are all
still descended from sub-Saharan Africans, though every line of ancestry.
T
Tim Streater
Guest
On 17 Feb 2022 at 08:51:20 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
It was tropical rainforest back then, wasn\'t it?
--
When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious what they had in mind was not democratic. In Britain you vote for a government so the government has to listen to you, and if you don\'t like it you can change it.
Tony Benn
wrote:
It was tropical rainforest back then, wasn\'t it?
--
When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious what they had in mind was not democratic. In Britain you vote for a government so the government has to listen to you, and if you don\'t like it you can change it.
Tony Benn
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:36:25 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
Sub-Saharan African great apes. I rather doubt that a modern human could interbreed with Homo Erectus. The moderately diverse great apes that started moving out of Africa two million years ago are clearly our near ancestors, but it\'s a long stretch to call them sub-Saharan Africans.
Sub-Saharan African great apes would be fine. The Natural Philosopher seems to be \"natural\" in the Shakespearean sense of being under-educated.
Sub-Saharan great apes, and our ancestors were a rather small subset of them.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis
was also descended from that stock. There doesn\'t seem to be any genetic evidence of interbreeding with them in the genomes collected so far.
But it is early days yet. When mitochondrial Eve was proclaimed, Y-chromosome Adam was thought to be a contemporary. About a decade later somebody found about a dozen Y-chromosomes in American males of African descent that pushed him back quite a bit further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Sub-Saharan African great apes. I rather doubt that a modern human could interbreed with Homo Erectus. The moderately diverse great apes that started moving out of Africa two million years ago are clearly our near ancestors, but it\'s a long stretch to call them sub-Saharan Africans.
Sub-Saharan African great apes would be fine. The Natural Philosopher seems to be \"natural\" in the Shakespearean sense of being under-educated.
Sub-Saharan great apes, and our ancestors were a rather small subset of them.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis
was also descended from that stock. There doesn\'t seem to be any genetic evidence of interbreeding with them in the genomes collected so far.
But it is early days yet. When mitochondrial Eve was proclaimed, Y-chromosome Adam was thought to be a contemporary. About a decade later somebody found about a dozen Y-chromosomes in American males of African descent that pushed him back quite a bit further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
D
David Brown
Guest
On 17/02/2022 13:38, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
We are /all/ great apes. That\'s the family of species that includes
humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutangs (and sub-species).
The last common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals was Homo
Heidelbergensis, who came from Homo Erectus. Different descendant
species from H.H. interbreed - that\'s how we got some Neanderthal genes
mixed with our mostly Homo Sapien genes. Since both Neanderthal and
Homo Sapiens are closer to H.H. than to each other, one would assume
that they could interbreed too (if they existed in overlapping time
frames). Could modern Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Erectus? I
don\'t know if anyone has done any serious work on it, but it would not
surprise me in the slightest.
The original comment was /clearly/ using the term \"Africans\" to include
our close hominoid ancestors.
I presume you are using the term \"great apes\" meaning \"great apes other
than humans\" - i.e., species that looked more like chimpanzees or
gorillas than modern humans. If you were to take a Homo Erectus and put
him or her in jeans and a t-shirt, few people would look twice.
We are discussing the facts here, not any person\'s education. You got
it wrong. Either you misinterpreted his post, or you were under the
incorrect impression that the Neanderthals split off from the main line
of Homo Sapien ancestors before they could reasonably be classified as
\"early humanoids\". Stop making excuses or trying to pass the blame, and
lets move on from this.
We are /all/ great apes. That\'s the family of species that includes
humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutangs (and sub-species).
The last common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals was Homo
Heidelbergensis, who came from Homo Erectus. Different descendant
species from H.H. interbreed - that\'s how we got some Neanderthal genes
mixed with our mostly Homo Sapien genes. Since both Neanderthal and
Homo Sapiens are closer to H.H. than to each other, one would assume
that they could interbreed too (if they existed in overlapping time
frames). Could modern Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Erectus? I
don\'t know if anyone has done any serious work on it, but it would not
surprise me in the slightest.
The original comment was /clearly/ using the term \"Africans\" to include
our close hominoid ancestors.
I presume you are using the term \"great apes\" meaning \"great apes other
than humans\" - i.e., species that looked more like chimpanzees or
gorillas than modern humans. If you were to take a Homo Erectus and put
him or her in jeans and a t-shirt, few people would look twice.
We are discussing the facts here, not any person\'s education. You got
it wrong. Either you misinterpreted his post, or you were under the
incorrect impression that the Neanderthals split off from the main line
of Homo Sapien ancestors before they could reasonably be classified as
\"early humanoids\". Stop making excuses or trying to pass the blame, and
lets move on from this.
A
Adrian Caspersz
Guest
On 16/02/2022 13:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Great, I now have a Russian cookie on my system.
--
Adrian C
Great, I now have a Russian cookie on my system.
--
Adrian C
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:49:01 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
<snip>
It would surprise me, but it is an entirely pointless speculation.
What on earth makes you think that? Gorillas and chimpanzees are both African great apes, but we don\'t call them Africans. The term is reserved for other modern humans.
No. I\'m not. I\'m well aware that modern humans are just another species of great ape - and you are too.
\"We are /all/ great apes. That\'s the family of species that includes humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutangs (and sub-species).\"
Speculations about what a Homo Erectus would look like in jeans and a t-shirt are just speculations. Museum speculation based on the very limited number of bones we\'ve got do vary quite a lot.
And what is the \"fact\" you seem to think we are discussing? That the Natural Philosopher seems to think that the was only one out-of-Africa migration and they were all modern human beings that he could call Africans?
> You got it wrong. Either you misinterpreted his post, or you were under the incorrect impression that the Neanderthals split off from the main line of Homo Sapien ancestors before they could reasonably be classified as \"early humanoids\".
They didn\'t split off. They were a separate population of early humans, but they could - and clearly did - interbreed with modern humans, which is why I\'ve got some three hundred Neanderthal genes. Whether they died out or merely got merged back in to the European human gene pool is an unanswerable question. The definition of a species as \"a group that can interbreed\" has problems - geographical isolation produces groups that can still interbreed even though they look rather different and occupy somewhat different ecological niches. Look up \"ring species\" sometime. Each sub-species around the ring can interbreed with their closest neighbours, except for the pair of species that met when the clockwise expansion around the ring ran into the anticlockwise expansion.
> Stop making excuses or trying to pass the blame, and lets move on from this.
\"Blame\"? Making excuses? I\'m just being pedantic, which is worth doing with racist right-wingers.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
It would surprise me, but it is an entirely pointless speculation.
What on earth makes you think that? Gorillas and chimpanzees are both African great apes, but we don\'t call them Africans. The term is reserved for other modern humans.
No. I\'m not. I\'m well aware that modern humans are just another species of great ape - and you are too.
\"We are /all/ great apes. That\'s the family of species that includes humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutangs (and sub-species).\"
Speculations about what a Homo Erectus would look like in jeans and a t-shirt are just speculations. Museum speculation based on the very limited number of bones we\'ve got do vary quite a lot.
And what is the \"fact\" you seem to think we are discussing? That the Natural Philosopher seems to think that the was only one out-of-Africa migration and they were all modern human beings that he could call Africans?
> You got it wrong. Either you misinterpreted his post, or you were under the incorrect impression that the Neanderthals split off from the main line of Homo Sapien ancestors before they could reasonably be classified as \"early humanoids\".
They didn\'t split off. They were a separate population of early humans, but they could - and clearly did - interbreed with modern humans, which is why I\'ve got some three hundred Neanderthal genes. Whether they died out or merely got merged back in to the European human gene pool is an unanswerable question. The definition of a species as \"a group that can interbreed\" has problems - geographical isolation produces groups that can still interbreed even though they look rather different and occupy somewhat different ecological niches. Look up \"ring species\" sometime. Each sub-species around the ring can interbreed with their closest neighbours, except for the pair of species that met when the clockwise expansion around the ring ran into the anticlockwise expansion.
> Stop making excuses or trying to pass the blame, and lets move on from this.
\"Blame\"? Making excuses? I\'m just being pedantic, which is worth doing with racist right-wingers.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 11:12:59 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
<snip>
John Doe is a half-witted troll who posts irrelevant nonsense in threads he doesn\'t understand.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
John Doe is a half-witted troll who posts irrelevant nonsense in threads he doesn\'t understand.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
S
server
Guest
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:sul2a8$af6$1@dont-email.me:
Nope... different species. And some may have gotten mixed in some euro
folks before they extincted.
Nice try though.
news:sul2a8$af6$1@dont-email.me:
Nope... different species. And some may have gotten mixed in some euro
folks before they extincted.
Nice try though.
S
server
Guest
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in
news:sulbvd$gis$1@dont-email.me:
No... Not from same roots.
H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are two separate species
news:sulbvd$gis$1@dont-email.me:
No... Not from same roots.
H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are two separate species
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:50:00 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
This is debatable. They clearly could interbreed with homo sapiens and the off-spring were clearly fertile, which nominally makes us both members of same species.
It there were cultural and behavioral differences that made interbreeding unlikely they might have been on the way to becoming a separate species. but it\'s a bit late to make claims about that.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
This is debatable. They clearly could interbreed with homo sapiens and the off-spring were clearly fertile, which nominally makes us both members of same species.
It there were cultural and behavioral differences that made interbreeding unlikely they might have been on the way to becoming a separate species. but it\'s a bit late to make claims about that.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
D
David Brown
Guest
On 18/02/2022 04:49, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Both of /these/ had the same roots. Think grandparents, not parents.
And H.N and H.S. interbreed. I don\'t believe we have any way of knowing
how successful this was - maybe only a very small percentage of attempts
resulted in viable offspring, which would justify classifying them as
separate species. Or maybe interbreeding was very successful, which
would suggest calling them sub-species. Either way, they interbred.
Both of /these/ had the same roots. Think grandparents, not parents.
And H.N and H.S. interbreed. I don\'t believe we have any way of knowing
how successful this was - maybe only a very small percentage of attempts
resulted in viable offspring, which would justify classifying them as
separate species. Or maybe interbreeding was very successful, which
would suggest calling them sub-species. Either way, they interbred.
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 18/02/2022 05:35, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
That depends on your perspective. There are loads of quite radically
different plant species that will hybridise easily and certain F1
hybrids can have remarkable properties. It even depends critically on
which is the egg donor and which is the pollen donor. There is a naming
convention for such hybrids and the multiple crossing to concentrate the
most desirable traits for houseplants gets very complicated.
https://sgplants.com/blogs/news/echeveria-gibbiflora-hybrids-a-short-history
More extreme and less likely to set viable seed are intergeneric hybrids
- some of which may be due to the plants really being more closely
related than their classical appearance might suggest. DNA sequencing is
finding a few unlikely looking plants are in fact closely related.
Taxonomy is forever changing with the lumpers and splitters fighting it
out over valid names for genera and what species belongs where.
https://www.thespruce.com/what-is-intergeneric-hybrid-3269459
https://www.sublimesucculents.com/succulent-hybrids-explained/#1-plant-hybridization-and-naming-nomenclature
You sometimes even get natural hybrids occurring in the wild. I have a
fairly rare one on my windowsill from wild collected seed. Waiting to
see when it has flowers what symmetry and colour they have.
Mostly they stay and/or become pure species by geographic isolation of
small populations or having different flowering times.
> It there were cultural and behavioral differences that made interbreeding unlikely they might have been on the way to becoming a separate species. but it\'s a bit late to make claims about that.
They were arguably a distinct different species but not so different
that they couldn\'t interbreed successfully at least some of the time.
It is possible that early European Homo Sapiens with their few percent
of Neanderthal DNA out crosses would have an element of hybrid vigour.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
That depends on your perspective. There are loads of quite radically
different plant species that will hybridise easily and certain F1
hybrids can have remarkable properties. It even depends critically on
which is the egg donor and which is the pollen donor. There is a naming
convention for such hybrids and the multiple crossing to concentrate the
most desirable traits for houseplants gets very complicated.
https://sgplants.com/blogs/news/echeveria-gibbiflora-hybrids-a-short-history
More extreme and less likely to set viable seed are intergeneric hybrids
- some of which may be due to the plants really being more closely
related than their classical appearance might suggest. DNA sequencing is
finding a few unlikely looking plants are in fact closely related.
Taxonomy is forever changing with the lumpers and splitters fighting it
out over valid names for genera and what species belongs where.
https://www.thespruce.com/what-is-intergeneric-hybrid-3269459
https://www.sublimesucculents.com/succulent-hybrids-explained/#1-plant-hybridization-and-naming-nomenclature
You sometimes even get natural hybrids occurring in the wild. I have a
fairly rare one on my windowsill from wild collected seed. Waiting to
see when it has flowers what symmetry and colour they have.
Mostly they stay and/or become pure species by geographic isolation of
small populations or having different flowering times.
> It there were cultural and behavioral differences that made interbreeding unlikely they might have been on the way to becoming a separate species. but it\'s a bit late to make claims about that.
They were arguably a distinct different species but not so different
that they couldn\'t interbreed successfully at least some of the time.
It is possible that early European Homo Sapiens with their few percent
of Neanderthal DNA out crosses would have an element of hybrid vigour.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
D
Dave Plowman (News)
Guest
In article <j77kpsFknv9U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
And now we know where Mr Doom gets all his information.
--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
And now we know where Mr Doom gets all his information.
--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 18/02/22 11:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
No surprise there, given that he previously posted...
On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
No surprise there, given that he previously posted...
On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
R
Rod Speed
Guest
David Eather <eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote
Or welcome it on that soggy little frigid island and in plenty of
other places like Canada and Siberia etc.
That remains to be seen and for some reason fools are too
stupid to adopt by far the best way of doing that, nukes.
It remains to be seen if the consequences are undesirable.
Cursitor Doom wrote
Gentlemen,
I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u
There you go: all the leg-work done for you.
FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.
1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.
2.If the world\'s temperature was stable then the number of record high
temperatures would be dropping slowly.
3.If the world\'s temperature was climbing then the number of record high
temperatures would be rising.
Do you not agree that these possibilities/projections are correct?
In fact they are the only possibilities. You can easily simulate these
projections with any random number generator.
Pick any \"average\" you like (within the range of the generator).
Set the Highest record temp to equal the average
initialize a iteration counter and start the simulation
generate a random temperature
is this temperature the record high? if so update the record high
temperature and log the iteration.
When done analyze the pattern of record highs and iterations.
Which of the above three possibilities does it match?
repeat with the average temp going slowly down and slowly going up (1%
per 100 hundred thousand iterations would be reasonable for a planet
simulation but pick whatever you are comfortable with)
Compare this to real world date. Don\'t cherry pick. Grab more than half
a dozen records from around the world that go back over 100 year - the
longer the better.
Which pattern does that match? You have your answer to if global warming
is real.
Even if you think everyone else is in on the scan, you have verifiable
hand written paper records more than 100 years old. Unless you can
believe that these now dead people who made these logs over 100 years
ago were deliberately trying to collude with scientists today by
changing data to affect the results of a science that didn\'t even exist
in there day then you have an answer to if global warming exists. If you
think that the logs were created 100 years ago to deceive us today then
you are simply insane.
Now the other and possibly more pertinent question - do man made carbon
emissions increase global temperature? The answer is:
Who gives a shit! The global temperature is going up that is easily
provable if you ignore the fake science and conspiracy theories*.
It doesn\'t matter why the planet is warming, we will suffer the
consequences.
Or welcome it on that soggy little frigid island and in plenty of
other places like Canada and Siberia etc.
That remains to be seen and for some reason fools are too
stupid to adopt by far the best way of doing that, nukes.
It remains to be seen if the consequences are undesirable.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 2:59:59 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
<snip>
One of the side effects of global warming is more extreme extreme weather events. They aren\'t welcome wherever they hit.
What\'s good about nuclear energy? It doesn\'t increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels which does give it an advantage over burning fossil carbon, but as a way of generating electricity it is expensive. The Australian electricity generating industry has been shutting down coal-fired plants for years because it\'s cheaper to generate electricity from wind farms and solar cells. Nuclear generating plants don\'t offer the same cost advantage.
The industry is investing in grid scales batteries and pumped hydro energy storage to cover nights and windless periods - it\'s already got fast-start gas-fired generating capacity, and that will used less as the grid storage ramps up.
Only for people who swallow the fossil fuel extraction industry climate change denial propaganda. Gullible suckers, in other words.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
One of the side effects of global warming is more extreme extreme weather events. They aren\'t welcome wherever they hit.
What\'s good about nuclear energy? It doesn\'t increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels which does give it an advantage over burning fossil carbon, but as a way of generating electricity it is expensive. The Australian electricity generating industry has been shutting down coal-fired plants for years because it\'s cheaper to generate electricity from wind farms and solar cells. Nuclear generating plants don\'t offer the same cost advantage.
The industry is investing in grid scales batteries and pumped hydro energy storage to cover nights and windless periods - it\'s already got fast-start gas-fired generating capacity, and that will used less as the grid storage ramps up.
Only for people who swallow the fossil fuel extraction industry climate change denial propaganda. Gullible suckers, in other words.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
S
server
Guest
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
<eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:
You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.
It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.
The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And
that\'s good.
More CO2 is good too.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<eatREMOVEher@tpg.com.au> wrote:
On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,
I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u
There you go: all the leg-work done for you.
FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.
1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.
You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.
It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more
positives.
The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And
that\'s good.
More CO2 is good too.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 4:40:54 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
But that isn\'t what\'s creating the higher average temperatures measured, or the record highs.
> It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more positives..
Except that the motive to test a lot more is a lot more people coming in sick with Covid-19. The epidemic was and is real. It has killed 959,130 Americans so far, and is still killing them at a rate of about 1800 per day - half the peak rate of about 3500 per day, but still a lot of deaths.
> The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And that\'s good.
It might be - if it were true. It isn\'t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
The current rate of rise is a whole lot faster than than the recovery from the little ice age, and we\'ve warmed up well beyond the peak of the medieval warm period.
> More CO2 is good too.
Good for weeds, perhaps. Our crops have been carefully selected to do well at atmospheric CO2 levels around 270 ppm. Other plants may out-compete them if they have access to more CO2.
You really should stop being a credulous sucker for Anthony Watts\' climate change denial propaganda.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:25:23 +1000, David Eather
eatREM...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
On 16/02/2022 11:36 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,
I *finally* got around to it. For those who don\'t have a local
library, or a decent enough library within reach, or those like Dave
Plowman who are just too bone idle to go to one, despite living a mere
tube ride from one of the finest ones in the world. Here is the
evidence for all those who for whatever reason prefer to simply click
on a link:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8eun5u
There you go: all the leg-work done for you.
FFS do some math and stop with the conspiracy shit and the shit from
conspiracy web sites.
1.If the world was cooling then the number of record high temperatures
set every year would be rapidly dropping every year.
You can get more record temps if you have way more 24/7 temp sensors
everywhere than we used to. Which we sure do.
But that isn\'t what\'s creating the higher average temperatures measured, or the record highs.
> It\'s like covid case counts. Test a lot more and get a lot more positives..
Except that the motive to test a lot more is a lot more people coming in sick with Covid-19. The epidemic was and is real. It has killed 959,130 Americans so far, and is still killing them at a rate of about 1800 per day - half the peak rate of about 3500 per day, but still a lot of deaths.
> The planet has been warming gently since the end of the LIA. And that\'s good.
It might be - if it were true. It isn\'t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
The current rate of rise is a whole lot faster than than the recovery from the little ice age, and we\'ve warmed up well beyond the peak of the medieval warm period.
> More CO2 is good too.
Good for weeds, perhaps. Our crops have been carefully selected to do well at atmospheric CO2 levels around 270 ppm. Other plants may out-compete them if they have access to more CO2.
You really should stop being a credulous sucker for Anthony Watts\' climate change denial propaganda.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney