On 12/12/2024 10:26 AM, Ed P wrote:
> Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not negate
> the fact that man is affecting it too.

No.

No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
do that, clownshow!

You keep coming back to this lie time and again like a craven cur hound
to his vomit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon

Changes in ocean currents may cause global warning

By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that
had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this
warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about
such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the
mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation
concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice
age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming
bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is
still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth
and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little
greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how
human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic
has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those
wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and
scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain
government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what
I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I
have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced
greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant
amounts of global warming.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is
an expert in tropical meteorology.

clams casino wrote:

> No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
> do that, clownshow!

Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
it never results in warming.

Volcanoes: "Volcanic Winter."

They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

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

On 12/15/2024 11:29 AM, JTEM wrote:
>  clams casino wrote:
>
>> No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
>> do that, clownshow!
>
> Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
> it never results in warming.
>
> Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."

+1!

(but not in centigrade, lol)

> They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
> this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
> from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

We're talking about .04% from humans.

Trivial pursuit.

On 12/15/2024 1:29 PM, JTEM wrote:
>  clams casino wrote:
>
>> No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
>> do that, clownshow!
>
> Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
> it never results in warming.
>
> Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."
>
> They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
> this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
> from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.
>
>
>
Man has been playing with Mother Nature for over a century too. What
about all the protective forests that have been removed? Mostly in the
last century combined with the heavy increase use of fossil fuels

The world has lost one-third of its forest, but an end of deforestation
is possible. Over the last 10,000 years the world has lost one-third of
its forests. An area twice the size of the United States. Half occurred
in the last century.

On 12/15/2024 10:29 AM, JTEM wrote:
>  clams casino wrote:
>
>> No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
>> do that, clownshow!
>
> Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
> it never results in warming.
>
> Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."
>
> They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
> this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
> from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

Another tard broadcasting ignorance to the world.

"Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the
rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are
too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact,
several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than
all the volcanoes on the planet combined do."

Ed P wrote:

> On 12/15/2024 1:29 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>   clams casino wrote:
>>
>>> No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass
>>> to do that, clownshow!
>>
>> Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
>> it never results in warming.
>>
>> Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."
>>
>> They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
>> this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
>> from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.
>>
>>
>>
> Man has been playing with Mother Nature for over a century too.

And volcanoes have existed slightly longer. Promise.

> What
> about all the protective forests that have been removed?  Mostly in the
> last century combined with the heavy increase use of fossil fuels

If the problem was fossil fuels then the solution would be to use as
much as possible.

We're running out. Demand is expected to outstrip supply starting around
2035. But if we encouraged fossil fuel use we could shave a lot of time
off of that, and the sooner it's all gone the sooner the skies start to
clear for good!

> The world has lost one-third of its forest

So kill people: Maybe 7 billion will be about right.

That'll get us down to where we were when the myth has Gwobull Warbling
beginning in the first place.

The wholesale slaughter of some 7 billion people will be a real
environment saver! Less fuel, less food, less cow farts, less
electricity... think of the emissions savings just from the shoes!

At only ONE pair of shoes each, after you butcher 7 billion people
that'll save 14 billion pairs of shows, all the raw materials that
goes into making them... the little metal rings that the laces go
through... energy to transport them to market... the energy overhead
of the retailer...

It's phenomenal, the energy savings JUST FROM ALL THE SHOES after to
butch 7 billion people!

AWESOME!

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

On 12/15/24 3:15 PM, Bob F wrote:

> "Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
> released by volcanoes each year.

We're *Way* overdue for a super volcanic eruption, as there hasn't
been one in the entirety of the Holocene.

Many are active right now, including Yellowstone. When that explodes,
and it will (it's a "When?" and not an "If?") we're speaking of the
energy equivalent to 100,000 nuclear weapons, and that's a conservative
estimate. When Toba exploded over 70,000 years ago it was roughly 2.5x
larger.

Toba is also active right now.

The massive Krakatoa eruption in the late 1800s was roughly 1/50th
Yellowstone, btw.

What I'm saying is that you are a textbook example of scale. You're
looking at today, when "Climate" and what is normal needs thousands
if not tens of thousands of years to determine what is "Normal."

Human will die in the cold. A super volcano (caldera) will explode
and this will touch off a glacial period -- what you think of as an
"Ice Age." If all goes well, the northern hemisphere will be fully
recovered in 1000 to 1400 years.

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

On 12/15/2024 2:14 PM, JTEM wrote:
> On 12/15/24 3:15 PM, Bob F wrote:
>
>> "Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
>> released by volcanoes each year.
>
> We're *Way* overdue for a super volcanic eruption, as there hasn't
> been one in the entirety of the Holocene.
>
> Many are active right now, including Yellowstone. When that explodes,
> and it will (it's a "When?" and not an "If?") we're speaking of the
> energy equivalent to 100,000 nuclear weapons, and that's a conservative
> estimate. When Toba exploded over 70,000 years ago it was roughly 2.5x
> larger.
>
> Toba is also active right now.
>
> The massive Krakatoa eruption in the late 1800s was roughly 1/50th
> Yellowstone, btw.
>
> What I'm saying is that you are a textbook example of scale. You're
> looking at today, when "Climate" and what is normal needs thousands
> if not tens of thousands of years to determine what is "Normal."
>
> Human will die in the cold. A super volcano (caldera) will explode
> and this will touch off a glacial period -- what you think of as an
> "Ice Age." If all goes well, the northern hemisphere will be fully
> recovered in 1000 to 1400 years.

And you are willing to risk all of humanity ignoring the easily
understood danger of greenhouse gasesfor these worthless fantasy
ramblings, "thinking" somehow we are saving humanity from a very
infrequent supper duper volcano that still will only release a tiny
fraction of the CO2 that man does every month?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

On 12/15/24 5:55 PM, Bob F wrote:

> And you are willing to risk all of humanity ignoring the

There's no risk.

According to your AGW myth, Gwobull Warbling started when
human emissions reached 1 billion tons. China all by itself
surpassed 11x that more than, what? Two years ago?

Their emissions have grown since then.

The amount of CO2 exhaled by humans is more than DOUBLE
what the myth says got AGW started, due to the population
growth since the early to mid 1800s.

In other words, if 100% of all human emissions ended, we'd
still be producing more than 2x the amount of CO2 needed to
create GWOBULL WARBLING just from breathing.

If we killed every man, woman & child outside of China the
planet would still be producing, what is it? Maybe 14x the
CO2 your myth claims started GWOBULL WARBLING.

IF there is any truth to your narrative, the only actions
left open to humans is PREPARATION. Not avoidance but
preparation.

But that's what I meant before when I talked about your
problem with scale...

You defined a problem that literally can not be solved, and
you insist that it must be solved. No. You can't go to the
ocean and stop the tide, you change. The tide doesn't.

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

On 12/15/2024 1:15 PM, Bob F wrote:
> Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
> released by volcanoes each year.

CO2 is still .04% of atmospheric gases, regardless of emitter.

Cope, clownshow.

On 12/15/2024 3:14 PM, JTEM wrote:
> On 12/15/24 3:15 PM, Bob F wrote:
>
>> "Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
>> released by volcanoes each year.
>
> We're *Way* overdue for a super volcanic eruption, as there hasn't
> been one in the entirety of the Holocene.
>
> Many are active right now, including Yellowstone. When that explodes,
> and it will (it's a "When?" and not an "If?") we're speaking of the
> energy equivalent to 100,000 nuclear weapons, and that's a conservative
> estimate. When Toba exploded over 70,000 years ago it was roughly 2.5x
> larger.
>
> Toba is also active right now.
>
> The massive Krakatoa eruption in the late 1800s was roughly 1/50th
> Yellowstone, btw.
>
> What I'm saying is that you are a textbook example of scale. You're
> looking at today, when "Climate" and what is normal needs thousands
> if not tens of thousands of years to determine what is "Normal."
>
> Human will die in the cold. A super volcano (caldera) will explode
> and this will touch off a glacial period -- what you think of as an
> "Ice Age." If all goes well, the northern hemisphere will be fully
> recovered in 1000 to 1400 years.
>
>
>
Solar cycle 26 is a cold bitch, and she's a comin'!

On 12/15/2024 3:55 PM, Bob F wrote:
> And you are willing to risk all of humanity ignoring the easily
> understood danger of greenhouse gasesfor

Breathe deeply....rest...breathe again...

On 12/15/2024 12:48 PM, Ed P wrote:
> Man has been playing with Mother Nature for over a century too.

Geologic time makes than an eyelash worth, clownshow.