The question now is: Does the solar 11 year cycle cause the recent sudden increase in temperature, and not CO2?...

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:36:30 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:51:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:57:34 AM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Aug 2023 07:22:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
vvj1eilan8c67onr2...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:17:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Neptune\'s clouds have vanished, and the sun may be to blame (video)
By Monisha Ravisetti
published about 10 hours ago
After analyzing 30 years of data, scientists came to a surprising conclusion about an ice giant in our solar system.
https://www.space.com/neptune-clouds-vanish-solar-activity-responsible

That\'s terrible. We should send them Al Gore.

If you look at those pictures its amazing: no clouds are left in the present.
The effect of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere is interesting.

But it is a rather different atmosphere on Neptune.

It does not make sense to just look at the low percentage change against total solar radiation
but you need to look at the type of radiation and what it does to the upper atmosphere (reflectivity, change chemical composition, etc).

We just over-estimate the human contribution to temperature changes..

The fossil carbon extraction industry funds a lot of climate change denial propaganda that claims this. It\'s not a remotely credible claim.

I was just watching a science program on zdfinfo I think it was, about how Europe and America were once connected and then how everything changed over millions of years.
It\'s all about continental drift, which is still going on and we are now measuring it.

Had to do things (pizza) so set a timer to record it, will watch the rest later,

Al Gore was just a salesman brainwashing kids with stories about polar bears...

That\'s what the climate change denial propaganda machine would like you to think. Al Gore had rather less control over the film that got made than he had over the book he wrote. Film-makers like sentimental images - they sell films. In reality Al Gore was a rather good science populariser.

HELLO BOZO, I AM NOT a \"climate denier\", I AM a climate realist.
That is what you like to think. It\'s obvious nonsense.
You climate change fanatics CAN\'T establish a direct link between CO2 and global warming, let alone climate change. I have asked you to do this and you HAVE FAILED!!!
Granting your ignorance and stupidity, dumbing down the explanation to one that you could follow would be a heroic task. Since you don\'t want to admit how ignorant and stupid you are, you wouldn\'t admit that you were wrong even after we\'d tied you down and made you sit through the entire explanation.

The logic is actually pretty simple. As Joseph Fourier worked out in 1824, for the earth to radiate away the heat it absorbs from the sun, the re-radiating layer has to be at -18C,
That effective radiating altitude is a few kilometres about the solid or liquid surface of the earth. Since the atmosphere has a lapse rate - it gets cooler as you go higher - the surface we live on is warmer than -18C. More CO2 in the atmosphere pushes the re-radiating layer a bit higher, so the surface we live on gets a bit warmer. End of story.

Hey Bozo, that is the end of YOUR story, which is COMPLETELY UNCONVINCING. There is just an allegory, a story that you, and the likes of you, are telling to convince yourselves that there is something there. No experiments, no energy balance equations, no data to back it up, no NOTHING!

So now everybody needs to buy a new electric car and all sorts of things ...

They should, in the long term. The longer they delay, the worse the climate will get, but trying to stop burning fossil carbon right now would make an even worse mess.

Which EV did YOU buy, Bozo?
I haven\'t got around to that yet. The gasoline burning car I\'ve got is 12 years old, and I use it very little. I can wait a bit longer.

Just as I thought: you are telling everybody else what they need to do, but you WON\'T do it yourself. You know what this is called? I will tell you: you are a HYPOCRITE!

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:24:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:36:30 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:51:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:57:34 AM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Aug 2023 07:22:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
vvj1eilan8c67onr2...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:17:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Neptune\'s clouds have vanished, and the sun may be to blame (video)
By Monisha Ravisetti
published about 10 hours ago
After analyzing 30 years of data, scientists came to a surprising conclusion about an ice giant in our solar system.
https://www.space.com/neptune-clouds-vanish-solar-activity-responsible

That\'s terrible. We should send them Al Gore.

If you look at those pictures its amazing: no clouds are left in the present.
The effect of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere is interesting.

But it is a rather different atmosphere on Neptune.

It does not make sense to just look at the low percentage change against total solar radiation
but you need to look at the type of radiation and what it does to the upper atmosphere (reflectivity, change chemical composition, etc).

We just over-estimate the human contribution to temperature changes.

The fossil carbon extraction industry funds a lot of climate change denial propaganda that claims this. It\'s not a remotely credible claim.

I was just watching a science program on zdfinfo I think it was, about how Europe and America were once connected and then how everything changed over millions of years.
It\'s all about continental drift, which is still going on and we are now measuring it.

Had to do things (pizza) so set a timer to record it, will watch the rest later,

Al Gore was just a salesman brainwashing kids with stories about polar bears...

That\'s what the climate change denial propaganda machine would like you to think. Al Gore had rather less control over the film that got made than he had over the book he wrote. Film-makers like sentimental images - they sell films. In reality Al Gore was a rather good science populariser.

HELLO BOZO, I AM NOT a \"climate denier\", I AM a climate realist.
That is what you like to think. It\'s obvious nonsense.
You climate change fanatics CAN\'T establish a direct link between CO2 and global warming, let alone climate change. I have asked you to do this and you HAVE FAILED!!!
Granting your ignorance and stupidity, dumbing down the explanation to one that you could follow would be a heroic task. Since you don\'t want to admit how ignorant and stupid you are, you wouldn\'t admit that you were wrong even after we\'d tied you down and made you sit through the entire explanation.

The logic is actually pretty simple. As Joseph Fourier worked out in 1824, for the earth to radiate away the heat it absorbs from the sun, the re-radiating layer has to be at -18C,
That effective radiating altitude is a few kilometres about the solid or liquid surface of the earth. Since the atmosphere has a lapse rate - it gets cooler as you go higher - the surface we live on is warmer than -18C. More CO2 in the atmosphere pushes the re-radiating layer a bit higher, so the surface we live on gets a bit warmer. End of story.
Hey Bozo, that is the end of YOUR story, which is COMPLETELY UNCONVINCING.. There is just an allegory, a story that you, and the likes of you, are telling to convince yourselves that there is something there. No experiments, no energy balance equations, no data to back it up, no NOTHING!
So now everybody needs to buy a new electric car and all sorts of things ...

They should, in the long term. The longer they delay, the worse the climate will get, but trying to stop burning fossil carbon right now would make an even worse mess.

Which EV did YOU buy, Bozo?

I haven\'t got around to that yet. The gasoline burning car I\'ve got is 12 years old, and I use it very little. I can wait a bit longer.

Just as I thought: you are telling everybody else what they need to do, but you WON\'T do it yourself.

I don\'t tell people that they need to buy an electric car now - for one thing it won\'t make all that much difference until the generation system has moved close to 100% renewables.

In the long term we\'ve all got to go there, but it isn\'t physically possible to do it all at once.

> You know what this is called? I will tell you: you are a HYPOCRITE!

It isn\'t. The word you should have been looking for is \"realist\". It isn\'t loaded enough to serve your purpose, which is childish abuse. It looks as if you are too dim to realise that you come across as an obnoxious idiot, and my pointing it out to you is pretty much a waste of time, but other people may get the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:44:09 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:24:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:36:30 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:51:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:57:34 AM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Aug 2023 07:22:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
vvj1eilan8c67onr2...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:17:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Neptune\'s clouds have vanished, and the sun may be to blame (video)
By Monisha Ravisetti
published about 10 hours ago
After analyzing 30 years of data, scientists came to a surprising conclusion about an ice giant in our solar system.
https://www.space.com/neptune-clouds-vanish-solar-activity-responsible

That\'s terrible. We should send them Al Gore.

If you look at those pictures its amazing: no clouds are left in the present.
The effect of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere is interesting.

But it is a rather different atmosphere on Neptune.

It does not make sense to just look at the low percentage change against total solar radiation
but you need to look at the type of radiation and what it does to the upper atmosphere (reflectivity, change chemical composition, etc).

We just over-estimate the human contribution to temperature changes.

The fossil carbon extraction industry funds a lot of climate change denial propaganda that claims this. It\'s not a remotely credible claim.

I was just watching a science program on zdfinfo I think it was, about how Europe and America were once connected and then how everything changed over millions of years.
It\'s all about continental drift, which is still going on and we are now measuring it.

Had to do things (pizza) so set a timer to record it, will watch the rest later,

Al Gore was just a salesman brainwashing kids with stories about polar bears...

That\'s what the climate change denial propaganda machine would like you to think. Al Gore had rather less control over the film that got made than he had over the book he wrote. Film-makers like sentimental images - they sell films. In reality Al Gore was a rather good science populariser.

HELLO BOZO, I AM NOT a \"climate denier\", I AM a climate realist.
That is what you like to think. It\'s obvious nonsense.
You climate change fanatics CAN\'T establish a direct link between CO2 and global warming, let alone climate change. I have asked you to do this and you HAVE FAILED!!!
Granting your ignorance and stupidity, dumbing down the explanation to one that you could follow would be a heroic task. Since you don\'t want to admit how ignorant and stupid you are, you wouldn\'t admit that you were wrong even after we\'d tied you down and made you sit through the entire explanation.

The logic is actually pretty simple. As Joseph Fourier worked out in 1824, for the earth to radiate away the heat it absorbs from the sun, the re-radiating layer has to be at -18C,
That effective radiating altitude is a few kilometres about the solid or liquid surface of the earth. Since the atmosphere has a lapse rate - it gets cooler as you go higher - the surface we live on is warmer than -18C. More CO2 in the atmosphere pushes the re-radiating layer a bit higher, so the surface we live on gets a bit warmer. End of story.
Hey Bozo, that is the end of YOUR story, which is COMPLETELY UNCONVINCING. There is just an allegory, a story that you, and the likes of you, are telling to convince yourselves that there is something there. No experiments, no energy balance equations, no data to back it up, no NOTHING!
So now everybody needs to buy a new electric car and all sorts of things ...

They should, in the long term. The longer they delay, the worse the climate will get, but trying to stop burning fossil carbon right now would make an even worse mess.

Which EV did YOU buy, Bozo?

I haven\'t got around to that yet. The gasoline burning car I\'ve got is 12 years old, and I use it very little. I can wait a bit longer.

Just as I thought: you are telling everybody else what they need to do, but you WON\'T do it yourself.
I don\'t tell people that they need to buy an electric car now - for one thing it won\'t make all that much difference until the generation system has moved close to 100% renewables.

In the long term we\'ve all got to go there, but it isn\'t physically possible to do it all at once.
You know what this is called? I will tell you: you are a HYPOCRITE!
It isn\'t. The word you should have been looking for is \"realist\". It isn\'t loaded enough to serve your purpose, which is childish abuse. It looks as if you are too dim to realise that you come across as an obnoxious idiot, and my pointing it out to you is pretty much a waste of time, but other people may get the message.

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, you ARE a hypocrite, telling everybody else what to do, but not doing it yourself. Others call you an \"asshole\", another version of a \"realist.\" And as far as the \"idiot\" part goes that would definitely apply to anybody that thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING their OWN COUNTRY is a fucking good idea.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:48:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:44:09 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:24:09 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:36:30 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:51:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:57:34 AM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Aug 2023 07:22:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
vvj1eilan8c67onr2...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:17:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet..invalid
wrote:

Neptune\'s clouds have vanished, and the sun may be to blame (video)
By Monisha Ravisetti
published about 10 hours ago
After analyzing 30 years of data, scientists came to a surprising conclusion about an ice giant in our solar system.
https://www.space.com/neptune-clouds-vanish-solar-activity-responsible

That\'s terrible. We should send them Al Gore.

If you look at those pictures its amazing: no clouds are left in the present.
The effect of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere is interesting.

But it is a rather different atmosphere on Neptune.

It does not make sense to just look at the low percentage change against total solar radiation
but you need to look at the type of radiation and what it does to the upper atmosphere (reflectivity, change chemical composition, etc).

We just over-estimate the human contribution to temperature changes.

The fossil carbon extraction industry funds a lot of climate change denial propaganda that claims this. It\'s not a remotely credible claim..

I was just watching a science program on zdfinfo I think it was, about how Europe and America were once connected and then how everything changed over millions of years.
It\'s all about continental drift, which is still going on and we are now measuring it.

Had to do things (pizza) so set a timer to record it, will watch the rest later,

Al Gore was just a salesman brainwashing kids with stories about polar bears...

That\'s what the climate change denial propaganda machine would like you to think. Al Gore had rather less control over the film that got made than he had over the book he wrote. Film-makers like sentimental images - they sell films. In reality Al Gore was a rather good science populariser.

I AM NOT a \"climate denier\", I AM a climate realist.

That is what you like to think. It\'s obvious nonsense.

You climate change fanatics CAN\'T establish a direct link between CO2 and global warming, let alone climate change. I have asked you to do this and you HAVE FAILED!!!

Granting your ignorance and stupidity, dumbing down the explanation to one that you could follow would be a heroic task. Since you don\'t want to admit how ignorant and stupid you are, you wouldn\'t admit that you were wrong even after we\'d tied you down and made you sit through the entire explanation.

The logic is actually pretty simple. As Joseph Fourier worked out in 1824, for the earth to radiate away the heat it absorbs from the sun, the re-radiating layer has to be at -18C,
That effective radiating altitude is a few kilometres about the solid or liquid surface of the earth. Since the atmosphere has a lapse rate - it gets cooler as you go higher - the surface we live on is warmer than -18C. More CO2 in the atmosphere pushes the re-radiating layer a bit higher, so the surface we live on gets a bit warmer. End of story.

Hey Bozo, that is the end of YOUR story, which is COMPLETELY UNCONVINCING.

So you couldn\'t understand it. Why am I not surprised.

> > > There is just an allegory, a story that you, and the likes of you, are telling to convince yourselves that there is something there. No experiments, no energy balance equations, no data to back it up, no NOTHING!

There is an enormous volume of scientific observations that backs it up in volumious detail. We\'ve got satellites measuring air temperature at various levels in the atmosphere that does spell it out in detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/30/corrected-satellite-data-show-30-percent-increase-in-global-warming-matching-surface-data/

Spencer and Christy who run the program, are born-again Christians with an irrational aversion to climate change and they were reluctant to correct errors in their data which supported the denialist point of view, but eventually realised that they\'d have to overcome their reluctance.

So now everybody needs to buy a new electric car and all sorts of things ...

They should, in the long term. The longer they delay, the worse the climate will get, but trying to stop burning fossil carbon right now would make an even worse mess.

Which EV did YOU buy, Bozo?

I haven\'t got around to that yet. The gasoline burning car I\'ve got is 12 years old, and I use it very little. I can wait a bit longer.

Just as I thought: you are telling everybody else what they need to do, but you WON\'T do it yourself.

I don\'t tell people that they need to buy an electric car now - for one thing it won\'t make all that much difference until the generation system has moved close to 100% renewables.

In the long term we\'ve all got to go there, but it isn\'t physically possible to do it all at once.

You know what this is called? I will tell you: you are a HYPOCRITE!

It isn\'t. The word you should have been looking for is \"realist\". It isn\'t loaded enough to serve your purpose, which is childish abuse. It looks as if you are too dim to realise that you come across as an obnoxious idiot, and my pointing it out to you is pretty much a waste of time, but other people may get the message.

Hey you ARE a hypocrite, telling everybody else what to do, but not doing it yourself.

Except that I didn\'t tell anybody to do that - a minor detail that you seem happy to lie about.

> Others call you an \"asshole\"

Cite?

> , another version of a \"realist\".

You won\'t find that equation in any dictionary. You fit the definition better, since you do post a lot of shit.

> And as far as the \"idiot\" part goes that would definitely apply to anybody that thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING their OWN COUNTRY is a fucking good idea.

Again, I don\'t. That\'s your deluded misreading of what I actually posted, which is available, but which you don\'t bother quoting because your deluded misrepresentation of it suits your lying rhetoric better.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[Robert Latest]

Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:36:30 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman
wrote:
Which EV did YOU buy, Bozo?
I haven\'t got around to that yet. The gasoline burning car I\'ve got is 12
years old, and I use it very little. I can wait a bit longer.

Just as I thought: you are telling everybody else what they need to do, but
you WON\'T do it yourself. You know what this is called? I will tell you: you
are a HYPOCRITE!

Prematurely getting rid of an intact vehicle to buy a new one is even less
sustainable than waiting for it to break.

Of course, encapsulating yourself in two tons of metal, plastics, and
electronics to get around can\'t ever be sustainable, no matter how the thing is
powered.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:40:17 AM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:

Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:36:30 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman
wrote:
Which EV did YOU buy, Bozo?
I haven\'t got around to that yet. The gasoline burning car I\'ve got is 12
years old, and I use it very little. I can wait a bit longer.

Just as I thought: you are telling everybody else what they need to do, but
you WON\'T do it yourself. You know what this is called? I will tell you: you
are a HYPOCRITE!

Prematurely getting rid of an intact vehicle to buy a new one is even less
sustainable than waiting for it to break.

Of course, encapsulating yourself in two tons of metal, plastics, and
electronics to get around can\'t ever be sustainable, no matter how the thing is
powered.

My Merc 180B only weighs one ton. Sustainable just means that you can keep on doing it indefinitely, and there\'s no particular reason to imagine that an electric car couldn\'t be recycled indefinitely.

Reducing the parts to their original elements and putting them back together does take energy, but the while the sun has a finite life-time we\'ll have probably found some other energy source before it gets to be unusable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Robert Latest]

Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:40:17 AM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:
Prematurely getting rid of an intact vehicle to buy a new one is even less
sustainable than waiting for it to break.

Of course, encapsulating yourself in two tons of metal, plastics, and
electronics to get around can\'t ever be sustainable, no matter how the thing
is powered.

My Merc 180B only weighs one ton. Sustainable just means that you can keep on
doing it indefinitely, and there\'s no particular reason to imagine that an
electric car couldn\'t be recycled indefinitely.

With the exception of some bulk (!) metals and maybe the glass there is exactly
nothing in a card that could be recycled indefinetely. Of course for each
component one could concoct some theoretical process to do it, but hardly any
of them would become economically feasible before the Earth is essentially void
of all natural resources.

Reducing the parts to their original elements and putting them back together
does take energy,

Yeah. So far it\'s only economically feasible for very few simple items, like
glass, steel, copper, aluminium and maybe some other metals. Polymers,
electronics, batteries: nada

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:13:06 PM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:

Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:40:17 AM UTC+10, Robert Latest wrote:
Prematurely getting rid of an intact vehicle to buy a new one is even less
sustainable than waiting for it to break.

Of course, encapsulating yourself in two tons of metal, plastics, and
electronics to get around can\'t ever be sustainable, no matter how the thing
is powered.

My Merc 180B only weighs one ton. Sustainable just means that you can keep on
doing it indefinitely, and there\'s no particular reason to imagine that an
electric car couldn\'t be recycled indefinitely.

With the exception of some bulk (!) metals and maybe the glass there is exactly
nothing in a car that could be recycled indefinitely.

Exactly?

<snipped the rest of the pretended expertise.>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney