From: R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Never Expected Stupid To Get It, Anyway
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:28:46 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: kymhorsell.com
In alt.global-warming Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 13:56, Lil-man-ball wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:03:09 -0700
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So your contention (do you know what that means in this context?) is
>>> that something that was changing at approximately 0.063% per year
>>> suddenly started changing at about 1% per year; at factor of 16 times
>>> faster?
>>
>> https://twitter.com/CPoppino/status/1776384293268590834/photo/1
>>
>
> Oh, look!
>
> YACWAS (yet another chart without a source)...
>
> ...and then there's the whole issue of the extrapolation being entirely
> fanciful.
...
Such stuff has been shot down for 30y on AGW fora. Everything from
sunspots to anut fanny's parasole has been offered up as an alleged
alternative to manmade GHG.
But none of them pass the basic numer tests.
If it is the case that X causes Y then you can take data for X and Y,
chop it into 3 parts by dates and use the middle bit to estimate how Y
depends on X. Then you can show in the first and third parts of the data
the same model works exactly.
If you do that with amt CO2 and avg global temps you get 2 curves that are
pretty close across the whole data.
If you do it with e.g. cosmic rays (detected by 100s of ground stations
since the 1950s when veryone gots skert by nookyolar wepins) you get
a big belly laugh as it fails.
<kym.massbus.org/COSMIC>.
Cosmic rays were once proposed as "the" answer for AGW. Supposedly
more cosmic rays would form nuclii for water condensation in the upper atm
and create more clouds. The diff between eras with more and fewer clouds
would be seen in the av global temps. Unfortunately not only does
the data not work (see the plot) but in the lab they (CCERN) couldnt get
the theory to work out either.
In this case cosmic rays are a proxy for the earth's magnetic field.
If cosmic rays dont work then we can be pretty sure the earth's magnetic
field might look pretty as a graph but curve fitting is not predicting.
--
kaggle.com/kymhorsell1