On 16.8.2023 19.18, Sawfish wrote:

This is a short article arguing against some aspects of climate change:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-08-14&src_cmp=mb-2023-08-14&utm_medium=email&est=

Vsmld0QDS42aNVdhmzUHau2xChF4IJkg2KlPkBWV1YX4%2BEgkTCKFrjCm3LQVx6DYAQ%3D%3D

Like other such articles, one should not view it as an authoritative
source, but as an analytical sandbox.

E.g., much is said about a discrepancy between former CO2 levels in the atmosphere and how they do not correlate well with rises in temperature. We're talking about going back entire geological epochs.

Given this, one might reasonably ask: by what method(s) can today's researchers determine global temperatures 30 million years ago? By what methods might they determine atmospheric CO2 levels?

Why would we have to go back 30M years to determine this?

Now, it's conceivable that CO2 levels *might* leave physical evidence in
the composition of certain sedimentary materials, but *temperatures*? I
could see *relative* temperature in a gross way--inferring it from plant types and growth (but again: how *certain* can we be about the way
plants 30 million years ago actually worked, how they photosynthesized
in any deep understanding?) but I can't see how any level of granular, indexed measurement can be achieved.

And this says nothing about the levels of other greenhouse gases at the
time, nor about cloud cover, etc.

Nor about acyclical solar activity.

There are lots of other things to consider.

You're just making it overly complicated.

One easy one to check is if
modeling done in the 1990s that shows what global temperatures were to
be in 2020 differs from what was actually measured.

I believe these things are routinely done.

There's a chart in
he article that shows that it does not,

Didn't read the article, no comment.

but the chart needs to be
checked close, and its sources; perhaps t is correct--who knows at this point?

The entire issue of climate change is so fraught with unwarranted
assumptions

WHat is the exact problem you have? You seem to have the same list of
quibbles in each of your posts on the topic. Go systematically down that
list and check what is written about each grievance. One by one.

That'll clear your head.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 17:18:50 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

This is a short article arguing against some aspects of climate change:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-08-14&src_cmp=mb-2023-08-14&utm_medium=email&est=

Vsmld0QDS42aNVdhmzUHau2xChF4IJkg2KlPkBWV1YX4%2BEgkTCKFrjCm3LQVx6DYAQ%3D%3D

Like other such articles, one should not view it as an authoritative
source, but as an analytical sandbox.

E.g., much is said about a discrepancy between former CO2 levels in the atmosphere and how they do not correlate well with rises in temperature. We're talking about going back entire geological epochs.

Given this, one might reasonably ask: by what method(s) can today's researchers determine global temperatures 30 million years ago? By what methods might they determine atmospheric CO2 levels?

Now, it's conceivable that CO2 levels *might* leave physical evidence in
the composition of certain sedimentary materials, but *temperatures*? I could see *relative* temperature in a gross way--inferring it from plant types and growth (but again: how *certain* can we be about the way
plants 30 million years ago actually worked, how they photosynthesized
in any deep understanding?) but I can't see how any level of granular, indexed measurement can be achieved.

And this says nothing about the levels of other greenhouse gases at the time, nor about cloud cover, etc.

Nor about acyclical solar activity.

There are lots of other things to consider. One easy one to check is if modeling done in the 1990s that shows what global temperatures were to
be in 2020 differs from what was actually measured. There's a chart in
he article that shows that it does not, but the chart needs to be
checked close, and its sources; perhaps t is correct--who knows at this point?

The entire issue of climate change is so fraught with unwarranted assumptions and moving variables that very much consideration is
required before one can even hope to get a partial picture.

Much of life is like this: not very clearly demarcated. You have to
resist reflexive and polemic positions based upon what purport to be authoritative sources.

it's been proven CO2 lags behind temperature by 800 years, not the other way round, but the climate nutjobs cos it's irrelevant to them whether the science is true or not. Here a list of folks who will ignore anything that disagrees with the climate
agenda :
1) the World Economic Fans who invented this climate nonsense back in the 60's as a long-term way to control people with one world government
2) Marxists like Pelle that see it as a way to destroy industry in the West
3) Thicko but well-meaning Youngsters/hippies who want to do good to the world and protect the earth, you can tell them Lockheed Martin are helping the planet and they'd buy stuff from them.
4) atheists who want to believe it's man that has control over the world/weather.
5) those who follow whatever the media and "current thing" without question and don't know any history or scientific data(NPCs).
6) Yongsters too young to have seen the doomsday climate predictions being repeatedly totally wrong

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 18:05:54 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 16.8.2023 19.18, Sawfish wrote:

This is a short article arguing against some aspects of climate change:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-08-14&src_cmp=mb-2023-08-14&utm_medium=email&est=

Vsmld0QDS42aNVdhmzUHau2xChF4IJkg2KlPkBWV1YX4%2BEgkTCKFrjCm3LQVx6DYAQ%3D%3D

Like other such articles, one should not view it as an authoritative source, but as an analytical sandbox.

E.g., much is said about a discrepancy between former CO2 levels in the atmosphere and how they do not correlate well with rises in temperature. We're talking about going back entire geological epochs.

Given this, one might reasonably ask: by what method(s) can today's researchers determine global temperatures 30 million years ago? By what methods might they determine atmospheric CO2 levels?

Why would we have to go back 30M years to determine this?

Now, it's conceivable that CO2 levels *might* leave physical evidence in the composition of certain sedimentary materials, but *temperatures*? I could see *relative* temperature in a gross way--inferring it from plant types and growth (but again: how *certain* can we be about the way
plants 30 million years ago actually worked, how they photosynthesized
in any deep understanding?) but I can't see how any level of granular, indexed measurement can be achieved.

And this says nothing about the levels of other greenhouse gases at the time, nor about cloud cover, etc.

Nor about acyclical solar activity.

There are lots of other things to consider.

You're just making it overly complicated.

One easy one to check is if
modeling done in the 1990s that shows what global temperatures were to
be in 2020 differs from what was actually measured.

I believe these things are routinely done.

There's a chart in
he article that shows that it does not,

Didn't read the article, no comment.

but the chart needs to be
checked close, and its sources; perhaps t is correct--who knows at this point?

The entire issue of climate change is so fraught with unwarranted assumptions

WHat is the exact problem you have? You seem to have the same list of quibbles in each of your posts on the topic. Go systematically down that list and check what is written about each grievance. One by one.

That'll clear your head.

sounds like Pelle is scared to test his old climate computer models, now why would that be?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/18/23 2:19 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 18:05:54 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 16.8.2023 19.18, Sawfish wrote:

This is a short article arguing against some aspects of climate change:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-08-14&src_cmp=mb-2023-08-14&utm_medium=email&est=

Vsmld0QDS42aNVdhmzUHau2xChF4IJkg2KlPkBWV1YX4%2BEgkTCKFrjCm3LQVx6DYAQ%3D%3D

Like other such articles, one should not view it as an authoritative
source, but as an analytical sandbox.

E.g., much is said about a discrepancy between former CO2 levels in the
atmosphere and how they do not correlate well with rises in temperature. >>> We're talking about going back entire geological epochs.

Given this, one might reasonably ask: by what method(s) can today's
researchers determine global temperatures 30 million years ago? By what
methods might they determine atmospheric CO2 levels?

Why would we have to go back 30M years to determine this?

Now, it's conceivable that CO2 levels *might* leave physical evidence in >>> the composition of certain sedimentary materials, but *temperatures*? I
could see *relative* temperature in a gross way--inferring it from plant >>> types and growth (but again: how *certain* can we be about the way
plants 30 million years ago actually worked, how they photosynthesized
in any deep understanding?) but I can't see how any level of granular,
indexed measurement can be achieved.

And this says nothing about the levels of other greenhouse gases at the
time, nor about cloud cover, etc.

Nor about acyclical solar activity.

There are lots of other things to consider.

You're just making it overly complicated.

One easy one to check is if
modeling done in the 1990s that shows what global temperatures were to
be in 2020 differs from what was actually measured.

I believe these things are routinely done.

There's a chart in
he article that shows that it does not,

Didn't read the article, no comment.

but the chart needs to be
checked close, and its sources; perhaps t is correct--who knows at this
point?

The entire issue of climate change is so fraught with unwarranted
assumptions

WHat is the exact problem you have? You seem to have the same list of
quibbles in each of your posts on the topic. Go systematically down that
list and check what is written about each grievance. One by one.

That'll clear your head.

sounds like Pelle is scared to test his old climate computer models, now why would that be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY7JX8Ee8i8

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!"

--Sawfish

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)