From: Lil-man-ball <suck@ra.mentos>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Even IF CO2 Warmed As YOU Say It Does, Can Our Whopping 3%
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:17:44 -0600
Organization: @multiple personality cluster fuck@
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:06:53 -0000 (UTC)
R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.global-warming Lil-man-ball <suck@ra.mentos> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:06:17 -0000 (UTC)
> > R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.global-warming Lil-man-ball <suck@ra.mentos> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:07:22 -0000 (UTC)
> >> > R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In alt.global-warming Serial Dimwit <dimwit@whitebread.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > New paper on the actual physics of the "GHGs", CO2, CH4, and
> >> >> > NO2 determine that
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "If" the atm kept the warmth in and made the earth more
> >> >> habitable at this distance from the sun than the moon is....
> >> >> that would make you the biggest ignoramus since Adam, right?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Urologist science is not atmospheric science.
> >> ...
> >> LOL. You cant even google.
> >> I'm 2 generations before
> > ===============================================================================================================================
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
> > Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for
> > this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
> ...
>
> The rule is if you think
===============================================================================================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
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.
===============================================================================================================================