Ape has warmed the oceans up

[Öö Tiib]

<https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934>:
| This month, the global sea surface hit a new record high temperature.
| It has never warmed this much, this quickly.
|
| Scientists don't fully understand why this has happened.

Did they really expect that it does not warm somehow? Or
were they expecting it to take centuries? It will warm and
it will keep "warming".

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> | This month, the global sea surface hit a new record high temperature.
> | It has never warmed this much, this quickly.

Pure bullshit. As of April 9, the La Nina supposedly ended.

"La Nina" means COLDER THAN NORMAL ocean temperatures.

It is NOT -- I repeat: NOT -- a case where we are in a El Nino,
which would be WARMER than normal sea temperatures.

We are NOT in a El Nino.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/march-2023-enso-update-no-more-la-niña#:~:text=La%20Niña—the%20cool%20phase,“Final%20La%20Niña%20Advisory”.

They BELIEVE we will be in one soon enough, as we are so
overdue after a triple-dip La Nina (COLDER than normal
ocean temperatures) but we are NOT in a Le Nina right now.

Pretty much all the climate hysterics labelled "Science" is
like this: Totally made up.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[Öö Tiib]

We are not in a El Nino nor in a La Nina but on climate territory
not charted ever.
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/26/accelerating-ocean-warming-earth-temperatures-climate-crisis>
Your posting of denial do not alter reality that we have to
"enjoy" as result.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> We are not in a El Nino

So you just admitted that your cite is total bullshit. Because it was
claiming record high temperatures when the temperatures aren't
high at all. Period. You just admitted that. "Unusually high" temperatures
would mean we are in an El Nino and we are not in an El Nino.

We just recovered from a TRIPLE DIP La Nina: COLDER than normal
ocean temperatures. So we're overdue for a El Nino but we're not in
one. Nobody is recording record high temperatures. Nobody is recording
abnormally high temperatures. It's all bullshit.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714713784084791296

[DB Cates]

On 2023-04-27 12:49 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 20:25:33 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>>> | This month, the global sea surface hit a new record high temperature.
>>> | It has never warmed this much, this quickly.
>> Pure bullshit. As of April 9, the La Nina supposedly ended.
>>
>> "La Nina" means COLDER THAN NORMAL ocean temperatures.
>>

In the eastern Pacific balanced out by warmer than normal in the western
Pacific. No real effect on global ocean surface temperature.

>> It is NOT -- I repeat: NOT -- a case where we are in a El Nino,
>> which would be WARMER than normal sea temperatures.

In the eastern Pacific balanced out by colder than normal in the western
Pacific. No real effect on global ocean surface temperature.

>>
>> We are NOT in a El Nino.
>>
>> https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/march-2023-enso-update-no-more-la-niña#:~:text=La%20Niña—the%20cool%20phase,“Final%20La%20Niña%20Advisory”.
>>
>> They BELIEVE we will be in one soon enough, as we are so
>> overdue after a triple-dip La Nina (COLDER than normal
>> ocean temperatures) but we are NOT in a Le Nina right now.

Meaningless in a discussion of *global* ocean temp.

>>
>> Pretty much all the climate hysterics labelled "Science" is
>> like this: Totally made up.

Well, you're making things up.

>>
> We are not in a El Nino nor in a La Nina but on climate territory
> not charted ever.
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/26/accelerating-ocean-warming-earth-temperatures-climate-crisis>
> Your posting of denial do not alter reality that we have to
> "enjoy" as result.
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[JTEM is my hero]

DB Cates wrote:

> In the eastern

Primary School Level Climate Class:

Most of the sun's energy falls along the equator and from
there is distributed across the globe by currents.

Our present ICE AGE, the one that won't end for millions of
years, was precipitated by the formation of the Isthmus of
Panama, blocking any exchange of water at that point. Even
so it took hundreds of thousands of years for the deep ocean
water to cool down to the ice age levels, spawning The
Quaternary Period.

The Quaternary Period, our ice age, is at present characterized
by a glacial/interglacial cycle. This is lengthy periods of
glaciations punctuated by much briefer warm periods called
interglacials. We are living in one of these interglacials, the
Holocene. Temperatures ARE LOWER than the previous
interglacial, sea level is roughly 5 meters LOWER, more than
15 feet LOWER than the previous interglacial.

The previous interglacial ended roughly 130,000 years before
the industrial revolution and fossil fuels. So the fairy tale here
is that even with BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of people added to
the planet. Even with all of our industrialization and forest
clearing. Even with all this supposed "Warming," we are still
significantly COLDER than the Neanderthals experienced
some 130,000 years ago, and yet we're supposed to panic
of some imaginary "Warm."

Oh. Also: The very height of science is to ignore all this and
instead compare a very tiny, unrepresentative sliver of the
Holocene to itself, scream that it doesn't match and then
impose massively regressive "Carbon" taxes, credits, trading
and auctions in order to price energy our of reach of the
people with the absolute tiniest "Carbon Footprints."

...while at the same time exempting private jets & yachts:

https://flybitlux.com/eu-proposes-to-exempt-private-jets-from-fuel-tax/

Yeah, I'm going to have to go tell you to fuck yourself, really
hard, and to not use any butter.

Thanks in advance.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 21:55:33 UTC+1, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > We are not in a El Nino
> So you just admitted that your cite is total bullshit. Because it was
> claiming record high temperatures when the temperatures aren't
> high at all. Period. You just admitted that. "Unusually high" temperatures
> would mean we are in an El Nino and we are not in an El Nino.

You err. The BBC article is describing a record
high temperature and record increase this year
/before/ the expected start of "El Nino". That is
expected to increase the temperature further.

I was anxious that the reporter confused the
record increase with a headline record temperature,
but that doesn't appear to be the case.

La Nina does not make the sea cooler. It just
pauses making it hotter.

[JTEM is my hero]

, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> You err. The BBC article is describing a record
> high temperature and record increase this year
> /before/ the expected start of "El Nino".

So some new "Record high" and it's not even unusually
high but it's a "Record," this BELOW anything unusual
because... wtf?

They call it "Fake news" for a reason and they call you
"Gullible" for a reason as well.

> La Nina does not make the sea cooler. It just
> pauses making it hotter.

La Nina is COLDER THAN NORMAL ocean temperatures.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716051658844651520

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 06:30:06 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> , Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > You err. The BBC article is describing a record
> > high temperature and record increase this year
> > /before/ the expected start of "El Nino".
> So some new "Record high" and it's not even unusually
> high but it's a "Record," this BELOW anything unusual
> because... wtf?
>

Whole ocean surface 0.1 °C higher than ever and
0.25 °C above what it has been ever in April. It might not
take too many centuries to start to boil too.

> They call it "Fake news" for a reason and they call you
> "Gullible" for a reason as well.
>

What was fake and who are "they"? Note that former orange-
tanned president (from climate change denial party) wanted
to buy Greenland from Denmark. Good idea, better to have
plan B in the madness.

> > La Nina does not make the sea cooler. It just
> > pauses making it hotter.
>
> La Nina is COLDER THAN NORMAL ocean temperatures.
>

World oceans are bit bigger than Pacific coast of that
continent you live on. The phenomena of that coast were
mentioned in article only because East Pacific was
measured among most unusually warm.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> Whole ocean surface

You're not taking temperatures. You're getting information from government
agencies, bodies that exist to carry out policy. They don't make policy. They
aren't allowed to make policy. They can even be prosecuted for "Leaking"
information they are ordered to not leak.

The Holocene is not warm. It's cold. It's cold and it's overdue to end, bringing
a return of mile-tall glaciers scraping much of the northern hemisphere clean.
The previous interglacial -- previous to the Holocene -- saw warmer temperatures
and higher sea levels.

Ocean temperatures are not presently hot. You claimed a "record" high but
they're not even abnormally high, much less a record.

NOTHING and I do mean absolutely NOTHING in the Gwobull Warblng gospels
maps to any reduction in CO2, much less a reduction to a point BELOW what
the narrative claims got Gwobull Warbling started in the first place.

Pretend you're not a mentally deranged sock puppet and Google it:

WHEN did your imaginary Gwobull Warbling start?

WHAT were emissions at that point?

Start there. It's called "Square One."

Start at this "Square One" and then using that basis you can frame all your
Gwobull Warbling hysterics within your own narrative.... and spend the rest
of your life dealing with the inconsistencies.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716051658844651520

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 17:25:09 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > Whole ocean surface
>
> You're not taking temperatures. You're getting information from government
> agencies, bodies that exist to carry out policy. They don't make policy. They
> aren't allowed to make policy. They can even be prosecuted for "Leaking"
> information they are ordered to not leak.
>

That is unbelievable conspiracy theory. The temperature sensors do not belong
to some government agency. The recorded data by those also do not belong to
some government agency. The countries and organisations measuring same
and confirming each other are often far from friendly. So something is faking
all of it? Must be we have scientific proof of existence of Satan? Give it to
discotute.

> The Holocene is not warm. It's cold. It's cold and it's overdue to end, bringing
> a return of mile-tall glaciers scraping much of the northern hemisphere clean.
> The previous interglacial -- previous to the Holocene -- saw warmer temperatures
> and higher sea levels.
>
> Ocean temperatures are not presently hot. You claimed a "record" high but
> they're not even abnormally high, much less a record.
>
> NOTHING and I do mean absolutely NOTHING in the Gwobull Warblng gospels
> maps to any reduction in CO2, much less a reduction to a point BELOW what
> the narrative claims got Gwobull Warbling started in the first place.
>
> Pretend you're not a mentally deranged sock puppet and Google it:
>
> WHEN did your imaginary Gwobull Warbling start?
>
> WHAT were emissions at that point?
>
> Start there. It's called "Square One."
>

Around 1700. In second half of little ice age. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_last_2,000_years#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg>

> Start at this "Square One" and then using that basis you can frame all your
> Gwobull Warbling hysterics within your own narrative.... and spend the rest
> of your life dealing with the inconsistencies.
>

There are no hysteria. I as person will die within next few decades in one way
or other. It is such property of specie ... mortality and short life expectancy.
We as whole specie will likely die within next few centuries in one way or other.
Just pity. Could've get somewhere, but ape is too vain, greedy and idiotic. No
one really cares and it is beyond my ability to alter anything.

The only hysteria about climate is from the fossil carbon extraction industry.
They fear they will be regulated or managed. But they don't want it
managed - they want to be able to keep on making money out of making the
planet less habitable for us. As they get lot of money they use some of it to
brainwash dumbasses. That works unbelievably well like you illustrate. Satan
indeed fakes all the data. Mua-ha ha? How idiotic.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/2/23 8:21 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 17:25:09 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>>> Whole ocean surface
>>
>> You're not taking temperatures. You're getting information from government
>> agencies, bodies that exist to carry out policy. They don't make policy. They
>> aren't allowed to make policy. They can even be prosecuted for "Leaking"
>> information they are ordered to not leak.
>>
> That is unbelievable conspiracy theory. The temperature sensors do not belong
> to some government agency. The recorded data by those also do not belong to
> some government agency. The countries and organisations measuring same
> and confirming each other are often far from friendly. So something is faking
> all of it? Must be we have scientific proof of existence of Satan? Give it to
> discotute.

Plus, there are innumerable other signs of global warming that have
nothing to do with government agencies. The Nenana Ice Classic allows
people to bet on when the ice thaws on the Tenana River, Alaska. It has
over 100 years of data, which show that the trend is towards earlier
melting. Multiple media outlets reported on unprecedented ocean heat
which killed oyster beds, and if you didn't believe them, you could have
visited the sites yourself and taken a whiff. Commercial cruises
through the Northwest Passage are now available. My own eyes can attest
to an increase in wildfire smoke in the last decade.

If anyone is telling you that global warming is not occurring, you can
be certain that your source has less than zero reliability.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> That is unbelievable conspiracy theory.

No. You're an idiot.

Government agency exist to carry out government policy. These are not
Benevolent Societies. The fact that you need to be told this undermines
you and anything you might possibly say on the topic... "Government
agencies that exist to carry out government policies, not make it? KOOKY
CONSPIRACY THEORY!"

You simply have a child's view of how the earth works.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> Plus, there are innumerable other signs of global warming that have
> nothing to do with government agencies. The Nenana Ice Classic allows
> people to bet on when the ice thaws on the Tenana River, Alaska. It has
> over 100 years of data

The Holocene is about 12,000 years old by popular dating, closer to 15,000
years old when you factor out the Younger Dryas cooling. And you're
claiming that comparing a 100 year period to itself is scientific and
definitive.

You're out of your goddamn mind.

It's cold right now. It's colder than it was during other times in history, like
the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. It's colder than
many periods in prehistory. The Holocene on the whole is COLDER than the
previous interglacial, sea level is more than 15 feet lower.

> If anyone is telling you that global warming is not occurring, you can
> be certain that your source has less than zero reliability.

Everything you're saying is based on a lack of science. It's flawed at a
fundamental level. You're comparing a very brief period of time -- 100 years
out of almost 15,000 -- to itself and declaring it doesn't match.

It's childish. You're well trained, not well informed.

NOBODY educated in science at all, we're talking ANY level of actual
science here, NOBODY could make the errors that you are making on
their own. It's impossible.

You have have to be trained, to the extant only popularly attributed to
cults, in order to believe that what you have stated here is factual, that
it's "Scientific."





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

[Öö Tiib]

Sure ... 50 years ago both winters and summers here were way colder, corn
of stupid Nikita Khrushchev did not grow well ... rye was OK and potatoes but
no one was dreaming of growing watermelons, grapes or peaches here
like some do now. Some even farm ostriches. Jackals wander into our forest.
That is only 50 years I have seen with my own eye ... no doubt that the data is
all accurate.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 23:50:09 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > That is unbelievable conspiracy theory.
> No. You're an idiot.
>

Don't scream at your mirror.

> Government agency exist to carry out government policy. These are not
> Benevolent Societies. The fact that you need to be told this undermines
> you and anything you might possibly say on the topic... "Government
> agencies that exist to carry out government policies, not make it? KOOKY
> CONSPIRACY THEORY!"
>
> You simply have a child's view of how the earth works.
>

Read what you write? Plain hysteric idiocy. Who is distraughtly lying about
what everyone see with their own eye? That frantic climate change denial
is from the fossil carbon extraction industry owners.

How they think their offspring can use those pointless numbers in some
bank computer (a.k.a money) in that cyberpunk planet that emerges? No
idea. Governments do not care until there seems to be "controversy".
They are ordinary people who want to pretend acting by "will of voters".

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 May 2023 07:24:25 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
>> Whole ocean surface
>
>You're not taking temperatures.

Neither are you.

>You're getting information from government agencies,

So where are YOU getting your information? You don't say.

>bodies that exist to carry out policy. They don't make policy. They
>aren't allowed to make policy. They can even be prosecuted for "Leaking"
>information they are ordered to not leak.
>
>The Holocene is not warm. It's cold.

Compared to what? You don't say.

>It's cold and it's overdue to end, bringing
>a return of mile-tall glaciers scraping much of the northern hemisphere clean.
>The previous interglacial -- previous to the Holocene -- saw warmer temperatures
>and higher sea levels.
>
>Ocean temperatures are not presently hot. You claimed a "record" high but
>they're not even abnormally high, much less a record.
>
>NOTHING and I do mean absolutely NOTHING in the Gwobull Warblng gospels
>maps to any reduction in CO2, much less a reduction to a point BELOW what
>the narrative claims got Gwobull Warbling started in the first place.
>
>Pretend you're not a mentally deranged sock puppet and Google it:
>
>WHEN did your imaginary Gwobull Warbling start?
>
>WHAT were emissions at that point?
>
>Start there. It's called "Square One."
>
>Start at this "Square One" and then using that basis you can frame all your
>Gwobull Warbling hysterics within your own narrative.... and spend the rest
>of your life dealing with the inconsistencies.

You first.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally unhinged, jillery went on a tizzy rant over:

> JTEM enlightened us all with:

> >You're not taking temperatures.

> Neither are you.

What difference does it make?

You're pretending to have reading comprehension. You're pretending
to be "arguing" against me here so explain how my taking or not
taking temperatures refutes anything of said.

Go on. Borrow some Big Boy pants and try.

> >You're getting information from government agencies

> So where are YOU getting your information?

Most of it comes from my interest in history and human origins. If
you had any interests yourself, instead of an unstable personality
desperate for validation, you'd know all about the Quaternary Period,
the Glacial/Interglacial Cycle, climate cataclysms (ALL OF WHICH
involved catastrophic cooling), the Roman Warm Period, the
Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age etc, etc, etc.

Next, if you were capable of apply this knowledge -- this knowledge
you don't have -- instead of dismissing it, you would automatically
spot outright falsehoods in the Gwobull Warbling narrative.

Another thing you'll never have is a grasp of the basics. In science,
you can't compare something to itself. If you want to know if the
present interglacial -- the Holocene -- is warmer then you don't
compare it to the Holocene, you compare it to the previous interglacial.
And you know about that previous interglacial, speaking rhetorically,
because of your interest in human origins. And, because of all that
you know that it's cold. Sea level is low.

BECAUSE you know what science is, speaking rhetorically, you know
the test is wrong, the "Evidence" is bogus, and because you share an
interest in human origins you know that a valid comparison reveals
the exact OPPOSITE RESULTS as those claimed.

This isn't hard. In fact, it's a great deal easier than being a stupid
troll sucking on the media's teat. BECAUSE, consistency is easy.

It really is.

I only have to remember one set of rules for science. You need to
remember at least two. only have to remember the one past, the
one we all learned about YEARS ago.

Not being a mentally unhinged screeching narcissist is actually
EASIER than the sickness you display!

> >The Holocene is not warm. It's cold.

> Compared to what?

I explained, nimrod:

> >The previous interglacial -- previous to the Holocene -- saw warmer temperatures
> >and higher sea levels.

If you want to know if the Holocene is warm, you compare it to the previous
interglacial and find out that it's cold. Sea level is low.

If you want to know if the industrial age during the Holocene is anomalously
warm, you compare it to non-industrial periods of warmth during the Holocene
and see that it's cool.

Peaks seen previous to the industrial era were higher -- it was warmer -- during
the present.

> >Start at this "Square One" and then using that basis you can frame all your
> >Gwobull Warbling hysterics within your own narrative.... and spend the rest
> >of your life dealing with the inconsistencies.

> You first.

"Lee Olsen" spazz? I went first. Before you. And explained everything. And
your stupidity coupled to your personality disorder is causing you to say
stupid things.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716268653482524672

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:29:46 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>> >You're not taking temperatures.
>
>> Neither are you.
>
>What difference does it make?

If it makes no difference, then you had no good reason to mention it.

>> >You're getting information from government agencies
>
>> So where are YOU getting your information?
>
>Most of it comes from my interest in history and human origins.

Unless you're speaking of Revealed Truth where you imagine information
popping into your head, you don't say from where you get your
information. I have no expectation you ever will.

>> >The Holocene is not warm. It's cold.
>
>> Compared to what?
>
>I explained, nimrod:
>
>> >The previous interglacial -- previous to the Holocene -- saw warmer temperatures
>> >and higher sea levels.

If that's your "explanation", then it was silly of you to delete it
from the quoted text.

Global temperatures and sea levels have been higher AND lower in the
past. The previous interglacial has no special relevance to current
climate. That's cherrypicking.

What is relevant is how quickly previous geological epochs came and
went compared to how quickly such changes are happening now.

>If you want to know if the Holocene is warm, you compare it to the previous
>interglacial and find out that it's cold. Sea level is low.
>
>If you want to know if the industrial age during the Holocene is anomalously
>warm, you compare it to non-industrial periods of warmth during the Holocene
>and see that it's cool.
>
>Peaks seen previous to the industrial era were higher -- it was warmer -- during
>the present.
>
>> >Start at this "Square One" and then using that basis you can frame all your
>> >Gwobull Warbling hysterics within your own narrative.... and spend the rest
>> >of your life dealing with the inconsistencies.
>
>> You first.
>
>"Lee Olsen" spazz? I went first. Before you. And explained everything. And
>your stupidity coupled to your personality disorder is causing you to say
>stupid things.

You didn't go first. Your baseless opinions "explain" nothing. The do
qualify as "stupid things".

[JTEM is my hero]

If it was a dog they'd be put down, jillery messed:

> My usenet diety, the belovedJTEM truthed:

> >> >You're not taking temperatures.
> >
> >> Neither are you.
> >
> >What difference does it make?
> If it makes no difference, then you had no good reason to mention it.

Of course I did. Because I was responding to your idiotic claims
regarding record highs when it's not even unusually warm, much
less a record.

> >> >You're getting information from government agencies
> >
> >> So where are YOU getting your information?
> >
> >Most of it comes from my interest in history and human origins.

Yup. If you're interested in these topics, you've been educated on
climate throughout history and pre history so you can spot bullshit
claims reported by the media as "Science."

> Unless you're speaking of Revealed Truth

Again, if you weren't a sick, twisted personality disorder, if you had
any actual interest in these topics, you would know all about the
Quaternary Period -- in which the entire evolutionary history of the
genus Homo took place -- you'd know it was an ice age, you'd know
about the Glacial/Interglacial cycle, you'd know we are inside a
not-very-warm interglacial called the Holocene... you'd know that the
previous interglacial was warmer, as was the one before that...

> >> >The previous interglacial -- previous to the Holocene -- saw warmer temperatures
> >> >and higher sea levels.

> If that's your "explanation"

It's called a "Fact." Conclusions are based on "Facts." Gwobull Warbling
is based on bullshit.

> Global temperatures and sea levels have been higher AND lower in the
> past.

HIGHER than the present. So the claim that it can't be as warm as it is
now without AGW is utter bullshit.

> The previous interglacial has no special relevance to current
> climate.

You're a lying sack of shit and a moron.

If you want to know if the present interglacial is anomalously warm
you have to compare it to the previous interglacial, not itself.

If you want to pretend that industrialization is warming the planet,
you have to compare the present to a time when there was no
industrialization. The previous interglacial took place even before
the Out of Africa dispersal claims. It is about as perfect a data point
to compare the present to as anyone can hope for.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Government agency exist to carry out government policy. These are not
> > Benevolent Societies.

> Read what you write? Plain hysteric idiocy.

At your age there's probably no hope for you. Go on, stay batshit crazy.
No amount of therapy & medication is going to force you to a cure.

You'd have to want one.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 02:26:55 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > Government agency exist to carry out government policy. These are not
> > > Benevolent Societies.
> > Read what you write? Plain hysteric idiocy.
> At your age there's probably no hope for you. Go on, stay batshit crazy.
> No amount of therapy & medication is going to force you to a cure.
>
> You'd have to want one.
>

I already told, stop screaming at your mirror in public. Source of your hysteria
is brainwashing of the fossil carbon extraction industry owners. Who as I
also did show already, are short sighted idiots.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> I already told

Using many different sock puppets.

The batshit crazy lie in Gwobull Warbling is that the climate is supposed
to somehow remain stagnant. It can't. If it's not getting warmer it's
getting colder, and colder means death to most of humanity: Billions of
people.

Warmer is far, Far, FAR better!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 17:25:54 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
>> I already told
>
>Using many different sock puppets.
>
>The batshit crazy lie in Gwobull Warbling is that the climate is supposed
>to somehow remain stagnant.

Incorrect. No one who knows what they're talking about even suggests
such a stupid strawman.

>It can't. If it's not getting warmer it's
>getting colder, and colder means death to most of humanity: Billions of
>people.
>
>Warmer is far, Far, FAR better!

During the existence of humans, the Earth has usually been far, FAR
colder than it is today. As for whether warmer is better, even you
might sing a different tune when the oceans become anoxic cesspools.

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 12:50:52 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled>

>If it was a dog they'd be put down, jillery messed:
>
>> My usenet diety, the belovedJTEM truthed:
>
>> >> >You're not taking temperatures.
>> >
>> >> Neither are you.
>> >
>> >What difference does it make?
>> If it makes no difference, then you had no good reason to mention it.
>
>Of course I did. Because I was responding to your idiotic claims
>regarding record highs when it's not even unusually warm, much
>less a record.

No you weren't. I made no such claims. You're lying again.
But even if I did, your criticism applies to both of us. So either
both our claims are "idiotic" or neither are, which make your comment
just more of your mindless noise.

>> >> >You're getting information from government agencies
>> >
>> >> So where are YOU getting your information?
>> >
>> >Most of it comes from my interest in history and human origins.
>
>Yup. If you're interested in these topics, you've been educated on
>climate throughout history and pre history so you can spot bullshit
>claims reported by the media as "Science."

Cite. Oh wait... you don't know how... nevermind.

>> Unless you're speaking of Revealed Truth
>
>Again, if you weren't a sick, twisted personality disorder, if you had
>any actual interest in these topics, you would know all about the
>Quaternary Period -- in which the entire evolutionary history of the
>genus Homo took place -- you'd know it was an ice age, you'd know
>about the Glacial/Interglacial cycle, you'd know we are inside a
>not-very-warm interglacial called the Holocene... you'd know that the
>previous interglacial was warmer, as was the one before that...

And you STILL don't say how YOU know these things.

>> >> >The previous interglacial -- previous to the Holocene -- saw warmer temperatures
>> >> >and higher sea levels.
>
>> If that's your "explanation"
>
>It's called a "Fact." Conclusions are based on "Facts." Gwobull Warbling
>is based on bullshit.

If my conclusions are based on bullshit, then so are yours. Same for
same.

>> Global temperatures and sea levels have been higher AND lower in the
>> past.
>

>HIGHER...


... AND lower...

>than the present. So the claim that it can't be as warm as it is
>now without AGW is utter bullshit.

Once again, no one who knows what they're talking about even suggests
such a stupid strawman.

>> The previous interglacial has no special relevance to current
>> climate.
>
>You're a lying sack of shit and a moron.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

>If you want to know if the present interglacial is anomalously warm
>you have to compare it to the previous interglacial, not itself.

Why only the previous interglacial? Why not the past 10 million
years? Or the past 100 million years?

>If you want to pretend that industrialization is warming the planet,
>you have to compare the present to a time when there was no
>industrialization. The previous interglacial took place even before
>the Out of Africa dispersal claims. It is about as perfect a data point
>to compare the present to as anyone can hope for.

I suppose you're right, since you like to argue with cherrypicked
data.

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally ill, jillery wrote:

> JTEM is my hero

> >The batshit crazy lie in Gwobull Warbling is that the climate is supposed
> >to somehow remain stagnant.

> Incorrect.

You're wrong, as always. Without the claim that the temperature should
remain stagnant, the tiny fluctuation CLAIMED don't amount to squat.

> No one who knows what they're talking about even suggests
> such a stupid strawman.

You don't know what you're talking about.

When did your Gwobull Warbling begin, according to your narrative,
and what were CO2 emissions at that point?

Do you have any idea? As you are claiming that CO2 caused Gwobull
Warbling and that regressive taxation can somehow address this,
you need to be able to answer those two questions.

> >It can't. If it's not getting warmer it's
> >getting colder, and colder means death to most of humanity: Billions of
> >people.
> >
> >Warmer is far, Far, FAR better!

> During the existence of humans, the Earth has usually been far, FAR
> colder than it is today.

Homo is conventionally dated within the Quaternary Period, which is
at the present characterized by the glacial/interglacial cycle, but Homo
appears to have been a tropical into sub tropical species for most of
the history of the genus.

> As for whether warmer is better, even you
> might sing a different tune when the oceans become anoxic cesspools.

The oceans were warmer, a lot warmer, and absolutely teeming with life.

Right now we are overdue to see a return of the glaciers, and when they
come back most of humanity is going to die. The vast majority of people
are going to die -- BILLIONS.

The earth will be colder and drier. Agricultural output will plummet. There
would be a greater -- not lesser -- demand for energy, at least until the
genocide does it's work.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716847865999360000

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally, a lost cause, someone not named jillery wrote:

> Beloved by all, JTEM truthed:

> >Of course I did. Because I was responding to your idiotic claims
> >regarding record highs when it's not even unusually warm, much
> >less a record.

> I made no such claims.

Not using the jillary alter but you did say it. Read the subject like,
you dumb spazz.

> >Yup. If you're interested in these topics, you've been educated on
> >climate throughout history and pre history so you can spot bullshit
> >claims reported by the media as "Science."

> Cite.

It was sarcasm. You have zero interest in these topics, you have no
life experience, knowledge to draw on. You're a waste product.

> >It's called a "Fact." Conclusions are based on "Facts." Gwobull Warbling
> >is based on bullshit.

> If my conclusions are based on bullshit

Let's not pretend you ever put that much effort into anything. You read
some headlines ordering you to shit yourself over the idea of the earth
warming within historic norms, even though it isn't, and that's it.

Oh. And there's also your mental illness that compels you to react to
what I say even though you have no actual interests in these topics,
no life history, no experience to draw on... just your emotional spasms.

> >than the present. So the claim that it can't be as warm as it is
> >now without AGW is utter bullshit.

> Once again, no one who knows what they're talking about even suggests
> such a stupid strawman.

Lol!

"Nobody is claiming that it can't be as warm as it is now without AGW,
they're just saying that the only way it could possibly be as warm as it
is now is with AGW... even though it's not warm.

You're just a mentally deranged troll.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716847865999360000

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 20:50:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>"Nobody is claiming that it can't be as warm as it is now without AGW,
>they're just saying that the only way it could possibly be as warm as it
>is now is with AGW... even though it's not warm.

Who is "they"? You don't say. Quelle surprise.

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Mentally ill, jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero
>> >The batshit crazy lie in Gwobull Warbling is that the climate is supposed
>> >to somehow remain stagnant.
>
>> Incorrect.
>
>You're wrong, as always. Without the claim that the temperature should
>remain stagnant, the tiny fluctuation CLAIMED don't amount to squat.

Go ahead and cite YOUR claims... oh wait... you don't know how...
nevermind.

>> No one who knows what they're talking about even suggests
>> such a stupid strawman.
>
>You don't know what you're talking about.

Cite who says what you say they say... oh wait... you don't know
how... nevermind.

>When did your Gwobull Warbling begin, according to your narrative,
>and what were CO2 emissions at that point?
>
>Do you have any idea? As you are claiming that CO2 caused Gwobull
>Warbling and that regressive taxation can somehow address this,
>you need to be able to answer those two questions.
>
>> >It can't. If it's not getting warmer it's
>> >getting colder, and colder means death to most of humanity: Billions of
>> >people.
>> >
>> >Warmer is far, Far, FAR better!
>
>> During the existence of humans, the Earth has usually been far, FAR
>> colder than it is today.
>
>Homo is conventionally dated within the Quaternary Period, which is
>at the present characterized by the glacial/interglacial cycle, but Homo
>appears to have been a tropical into sub tropical species for most of
>the history of the genus.
>
>> As for whether warmer is better, even you
>> might sing a different tune when the oceans become anoxic cesspools.
>
>The oceans were warmer, a lot warmer, and absolutely teeming with life.

Sometimes they were teeming, and sometimes they were anoxic cesspools.

>Right now we are overdue to see a return of the glaciers, and when they
>come back most of humanity is going to die. The vast majority of people
>are going to die -- BILLIONS.

Even if there were no AGW, glaciers wouldn't be expected to return for
at least another 50K years.

>The earth will be colder and drier. Agricultural output will plummet. There
>would be a greater -- not lesser -- demand for energy, at least until the
>genocide does it's work.


--

[Glenn]

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 8:30:33 AM UTC-7, Öö Tiib wrote:
> <https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934>:

> | This month, the global sea surface hit a new record high temperature.
> | It has never warmed this much, this quickly.
> |

> | Scientists don't fully understand why this has happened.
>
> Did they really expect that it does not warm somehow? Or
> were they expecting it to take centuries? It will warm and
> it will keep "warming".

If you really believe that global sea surface temperatures from 1880 or so to 2000 can be compared to those from 2000 to today, you should be committed to a mental hospital.

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 00:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqZTqIKMxs>
Short version: Permafrost is melting faster than expected, which
releases more CO2 and CH4, which causes permafrost to melt faster...

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHGt9l6U5fM>
Short version: U.S. and Europe are warming faster than global average,
while the Arctic is warming faster than those continents.

[JTEM is my hero]

A mental train wreck NOT named jillery wrote:

> Most beloved of all, JTEM spoke thus:

> >> >The batshit crazy lie in Gwobull Warbling is that the climate is supposed
> >> >to somehow remain stagnant.
> >
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >You're wrong, as always. Without the claim that the temperature should
> >remain stagnant, the tiny fluctuation CLAIMED don't amount to squat.

> Go ahead and cite YOUR claims... oh wait...

Cite, what?

That unless you're claiming stagnation is the norm, no reported change can
have any meaning what so ever?

You don't need a cite for this, you need your head examined for thinking you
could fool anyone into believing you're not a troll.

> >You don't know what you're talking about.

> Cite who says what you say they say...

You're out of your mind. Seriously.

"Nobody says the climate is supposed to remain stagnant but, OMG, if
it's any warmer then that means MAN MADE GWOBULL WARBLING!!!"

You're waste product.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Short version: Permafrost is melting faster than expected, which
> releases more CO2 and CH4, which causes permafrost to melt faster...

I know you're insane, not to mention stupid, but how did all those ICE AGE
animals get trapped inside of this "permafrost," UNLESS it wasn't
frozen when they died?

You have no clue. None.

Without knowing it, because you are such a worthless dumb shit, you
are arguing that the Holocene is ending and that the next glacial
period is already starting!

If the permafrost is returning to the conditions seen during the last
glacial period, THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL COOLING,
you brainless shit.

The permafrost isn't permanent. It didn't exist during the last glacial
period when mammoths were tramping all around. That's how these
"Ice Age" animals got inside of what we imagine is permafrost.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 13:47:15 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>
>A mental train wreck NOT named jillery wrote:
>
>> Most beloved of all, JTEM spoke thus:
>
>> >> >The batshit crazy lie in Gwobull Warbling is that the climate is supposed
>> >> >to somehow remain stagnant.
>> >
>> >> Incorrect.
>> >
>> >You're wrong, as always. Without the claim that the temperature should
>> >remain stagnant, the tiny fluctuation CLAIMED don't amount to squat.
>
>> Go ahead and cite YOUR claims... oh wait...
>
>Cite, what?

You keep asking, and so I keep answering:

Cite who claims that the temperature should remain stagnant. Your
claim is a willfully stupid strawman.

You're welcome.

>That unless you're claiming stagnation is the norm, no reported change can
>have any meaning what so ever?
>
>You don't need a cite for this, you need your head examined for thinking you
>could fool anyone into believing you're not a troll.
>
>> >You don't know what you're talking about.
>
>> Cite who says what you say they say...
>
>You're out of your mind. Seriously.
>
>"Nobody says the climate is supposed to remain stagnant but, OMG, if
>it's any warmer then that means MAN MADE GWOBULL WARBLING!!!"
>
>You're waste product.

Endless mindless noise, and *still* not one cite. MOTS

[jillery]

The following post of self-parody brought to you by:

On Wed, 10 May 2023 13:52:28 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Short version: Permafrost is melting faster than expected, which
>> releases more CO2 and CH4, which causes permafrost to melt faster...

<cites restored>
>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqZTqIKMxs>

>>Short version: Permafrost is melting faster than expected, which
>>releases more CO2 and CH4, which causes permafrost to melt faster...
>>

>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHGt9l6U5fM>
>>Short version: U.S. and Europe are warming faster than global average,
>>while the Arctic is warming faster than those continents.
>

>I know you're insane, not to mention stupid, but how did all those ICE AGE
>animals get trapped inside of this "permafrost," UNLESS it wasn't
>frozen when they died?

Apparently JTEM can't comprehend that animals get trapped in mud
BEFORE the mud froze.

>You have no clue. None.
>
>Without knowing it, because you are such a worthless dumb shit, you
>are arguing that the Holocene is ending and that the next glacial
>period is already starting!
>
>If the permafrost is returning to the conditions seen during the last
>glacial period, THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL COOLING,
>you brainless shit.

Apparently JTEM thinks melting permafrost is EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL
COOLING.

>The permafrost isn't permanent. It didn't exist during the last glacial
>period when mammoths were tramping all around. That's how these
>"Ice Age" animals got inside of what we imagine is permafrost.

--

[Öö Tiib]

Hi Glenn, thanks for diagnosis. I do not know what is your issue.
Did the properties of matter in our universe change in unknown
ways on year 2000? First temperature measurement scale was
published by Gabriel Farenheit at 1724. So it is unclear why you
think we can not compare measurements.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Cite who claims that the temperature should remain stagnant.

You're a sociopath and a narcissist. These are not just words. I
am not getting in a "dig" here. These things you keep saying are
utter bullshit and only make sense to you because of your
disordered need to obstruct.

"There has been a change in temperature." That's it. That is the
entirety of the Gwobull Warbling claim: "There has been a
change in temperature."

Who cares? Nobody. Unless and until you insist that the climate
is supposed to be stagnant, the fact that the climate isn't
stagnant is irrelevant.

> >"Nobody says the climate is supposed to remain stagnant but, OMG, if
> >it's any warmer then that means MAN MADE GWOBULL WARBLING!!!"
> >
> >You're waste product.

I repeat: You are a waste product.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717051628437585920

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Apparently JTEM can't comprehend that animals get trapped in mud
> BEFORE the mud froze.

So it was warmer during the so called "Ice Age." The permafrost wasn't
frost, it was mud.

According to you.

> >The permafrost isn't permanent. It didn't exist during the last glacial
> >period when mammoths were tramping all around. That's how these
> >"Ice Age" animals got inside of what we imagine is permafrost.

Exactly.

The grown of the glaciers changed the way the planet circulated energy
from the sun. Places where we find so called "permafrost" today wasn't
"permafrost" and you are testifying here, now, that conditions are
returning to what was seen during the last glacial period.

Makes sense, we're way overdue for a glacial period, so it makes sense
that we are already transitioning into the next one, as you testify.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717051628437585920

[JTEM is my hero]

Tiib wrote:

> Hi Glenn, thanks for diagnosis. I do not know what is your issue.
> Did the properties of matter in our universe change in unknown
> ways on year 2000? First temperature measurement scale was
> published by Gabriel Farenheit at 1724. So it is unclear why you
> think we can not compare measurements.

There are virtually none.

Precious little of the planet has any historical data at all.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717051628437585920

[jillery]

The following self-parody brought to you by:

On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:38:05 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>The grown[sic] of the glaciers changed the way the planet circulated energy

>from the sun. Places where we find so called "permafrost" today wasn't
>"permafrost" and you are testifying here, now, that conditions are
>returning to what was seen during the last glacial period.
>
>Makes sense, we're way overdue for a glacial period, so it makes sense
>that we are already transitioning into the next one, as you testify.

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:32:38 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Cite who claims that the temperature should remain stagnant.
>
>You're a sociopath and a narcissist. These are not just words. I
>am not getting in a "dig" here. These things you keep saying are
>utter bullshit and only make sense to you because of your
>disordered need to obstruct.
>
>"There has been a change in temperature." That's it. That is the
>entirety of the Gwobull Warbling claim: "There has been a
>change in temperature."

And *still* no cite, only MOTS.

>Who cares? Nobody. Unless and until you insist that the climate
>is supposed to be stagnant, the fact that the climate isn't
>stagnant is irrelevant.
>
>> >"Nobody says the climate is supposed to remain stagnant but, OMG, if
>> >it's any warmer then that means MAN MADE GWOBULL WARBLING!!!"
>> >
>> >You're waste product.
>
>I repeat: You are a waste product.

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

[JTEM is my hero]

Idiot extraordinaire, jillery wrote:

> The following self-parody

Interglacials typically lasted 10k years. Ours is popularly dated to
around 11/12k years ago but is more like 15k when factoring out
the Younger Dryas cooling.

We are overdue for a return of the glaciers.

Conditions are right. We're probably a VEI8 volcano away from the
next one, and several of those are active right at this moment.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 May 2023 19:18:53 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqZTqIKMxs>
>>Short version: Permafrost is melting faster than expected, which
>>releases more CO2 and CH4, which causes permafrost to melt faster...
>>
>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHGt9l6U5fM>
>>Short version: U.S. and Europe are warming faster than global average,
>>while the Arctic is warming faster than those continents.
>

>Interglacials typically lasted 10k years. Ours is popularly dated to
>around 11/12k years ago but is more like 15k when factoring out
>the Younger Dryas cooling.
>
>We are overdue for a return of the glaciers.
>
>Conditions are right. We're probably a VEI8 volcano away from the
>next one, and several of those are active right at this moment.

The following link is to a PBS Spacetime video. It's an excellent
summary of Milankovitch Cycles, which JTEM and other AGW-deniers claim
will rescue us from drowning our shores with hot ocean water:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws>

At the earliest, Milankovitch Cycles would end the current Holocene
Interglacial in 10K-12K years. That's hardly soon enough to stop much
of Greenland and Antarctic ice from melting in the next 100 years, and
meter-level sea-level rise in the next decades.

Also, every 4th eccentricity peak is very low, and the next
eccentricity peak will be almost as low. This means the Holocene
Interglaicial will last at least another 25K-50K years.

Also, JTEM and other AGW-deniers conveniently ignore that the amount
of atmospheric CO2 is unprecented in the climate record going back
tens of millions of years.

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 17:25:54 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Warmer is far, Far, FAR better!

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBrL8BokSk>

Experiments on volunteers show that even heat-adapted humans suffer
when the wet-bulb temperature approaches 32 degrees C., and die when
exposed to just a few hours of temperatures exceeding 35 degrees C.

As global warming increases, more regions experience such high amounts
of heat and humidity.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 1:20:20 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2023 17:25:54 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
> >Warmer is far, Far, FAR better!
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBrL8BokSk>
>
> Experiments on volunteers show that even heat-adapted humans suffer
> when the wet-bulb temperature approaches 32 degrees C., and die when
> exposed to just a few hours of temperatures exceeding 35 degrees C.

Like to see the informed consent document for that experiment...

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 1:20:20?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 May 2023 17:25:54 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
>> >Warmer is far, Far, FAR better!
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBrL8BokSk>
>>
>> Experiments on volunteers show that even heat-adapted humans suffer
>> when the wet-bulb temperature approaches 32 degrees C., and die when
>> exposed to just a few hours of temperatures exceeding 35 degrees C.
>
>Like to see the informed consent document for that experiment...

I suppose I should have used two separate sentences.

[JTEM is my hero]

Eats his own ear wax but is NOT named jillery wrote:

[...]

Nothing has changed. This is still a brief interglacial, a warm period,
nestled between two much longer glacial periods ("ice ages"), which
are themselves occurring inside of the Quaternary Period....

It's not warm. Right now it's cold. If idiots stop comparing the present
period, the Holocene, to itself, and instead compare it to the previous
interglacial period, it's cold. Sea level is too low -- about 15 feet lower.

In the 19th century a cold period called "The Little Age" ended. It had
been warmer prior to this little ice age and then the climate turned
cold. This "Little Ice Age" ended in the 19th century, which is also when
the Gwobull Warbling gospels claim that AGW began.

HINT: When a cold period ends it's supposed to warm up.

Fossil fuels are powerful climate COOLERS.

Burning fossil fuels puts pollution into the atmosphere -- particles,
particulates -- which act like tiny parasols shading the earth.

Standing in the shade on a sunny day is COOLER, not warmer, than
standing in direct sunlight...

Of course, the "Particulates" in fossil fuels are tiny, but when you're
billowing tons & tons of them, you start blocking a lot of sun light.

The worst culprit, in fossil fuels, is sulfur. The sulfur in fossil fuels
doesn't just shade the earth, it converts into an aerosol in the
atmosphere and bounces energy from the sun back out into space.
So there's literally not as much sunlight anymore.

Volcanoes are a major climate driver, here on the earth, and they
can billow massive clouds into our atmosphere, ridiculous amounts
of sulfur.

GOOGLE: Volcanic Winter

It's like a nuclear winter, only much worse. Yellowstone, for example,
is holding back the equivalent to about 100,000 nuclear weapons in
energy, and most sources claim that is conservative.

It is active right now.

Google: VEI8 volcano

Yellowstone is active right now, Toba is active right now... there's others,
all a matter of "When" and not "If" they will explode...

We're looking at colder temperatures in the northern hemisphere for
a thousand years or more. The entire planet would likely be cast into
a winter. Glaciers would grow. Plants would not.

And it's going to happen. We're overdue. There's a lot of VEI-8
volcanoes active right now, they all will erupt, and we don't know
when.

...and you think an insignificant rise in temperatures, which is
imaginary anyway, is going to spell doom?

You are ignorant. You have no business discussing climate.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717282714287521792

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> The following link is to a PBS Spacetime video. It's an excellent
> summary of Milankovitch Cycles, which JTEM and other AGW-deniers claim
> will rescue us from drowning our shores with hot ocean water:

I don't know anyone who claims that cooling the earth wouldn't be
devastating for humanity.

If we could warm the planet, we'd be insane not to.

The planet's norm is "Warmer." It's cold right now. Sea level was more
than 15 feet higher during the previous interglacial, about 130,000 years
before the industrial revolution.

> Also, every 4th eccentricity peak is very low, and the next
> eccentricity peak will be almost as low. This means the Holocene
> Interglaicial will last at least another 25K-50K years.

It's already ending, according to you.

You testified that conditions on cold places. like Siberia, are returning
to what they were like back during the so called "Ice Age."

...there's all those "Ice Age" animals buried in what the propaganda
calls permafrost. But if it were permanent then "Ice Age" animals could
never got down inside of it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717282714287521792

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 3:20:21 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>
> > The following link is to a PBS Spacetime video. It's an excellent
> > summary of Milankovitch Cycles, which JTEM and other AGW-deniers claim
> > will rescue us from drowning our shores with hot ocean water:

"hot ocean water" is overdoing it, but what you say below, JTEM, is
of greater concern.

> I don't know anyone who claims that cooling the earth wouldn't be
> devastating for humanity.
>
> If we could warm the planet, we'd be insane not to.
>
> The planet's norm is "Warmer."

The "norm" is very abnormal for us humans.

> It's cold right now. Sea level was more
> than 15 feet higher during the previous interglacial, about 130,000 years
> before the industrial revolution.

Sea level has also been considerably higher through almost all of the Cenozoic
than at any time during the Pleistocene interglacials.

That's because there were no icecaps in either the Arctic or Antarctic in that "norm" time.

Feast your eyes on the graph I linked below, paying special heed to
the events and trends that influenced the state of the Antarctic glaciation.
It also shows graphically that there has been a general overall
downwards trend in global temperatures over the last 15 million years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

There are other graphs where that one came from, on different time scales:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

The first graph covers the last 5 million years. This was well after, and colder,
than when the Antarctic glaciation began to re-form. We have a good
ways to go before we get even as high as the beginning.

> > Also, every 4th eccentricity peak is very low, and the next
> > eccentricity peak will be almost as low. This means the Holocene
> > Interglaicial will last at least another 25K-50K years.


> It's already ending, according to you.
>
> You testified that conditions on cold places. like Siberia, are returning
> to what they were like back during the so called "Ice Age."
>
> ...there's all those "Ice Age" animals buried in what the propaganda
> calls permafrost. But if it were permanent then "Ice Age" animals could
> never got down inside of it.

You seem unconcerned about the possibility that humans will see a repeat
of the PETM spike that is labeled in the first graph that I linked. This could easily
happen in another two or three centuries if the present trends continue
of fossil fuel burning and production of methane by cattle, etc.

Our metabolism evolved through the millions of years when the temperature
was well below PETM heights. How well do you think humans as a whole
can adapt to such high temperatures?


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I don't know anyone who claims that cooling the earth wouldn't be
> > devastating for humanity.
> >
> > If we could warm the planet, we'd be insane not to.
> >
> > The planet's norm is "Warmer."

> The "norm" is very abnormal for us humans.

No it isn't. Homo was a tropical into the sub tropics animal until extremely
recently in our evolution. We needed to evolve brains enough to develop
technologies to help us deal with the cold, and new mtDNA lines to help
us keep warm.

None of this matters anyway. The Gwobull Warbling narrative includes
"Solutions," and those solutions can't possibly lead to the claimed results
they want.

Even if we eliminated 100% of all fossil fuels tomorrow, unless we slaughter
more than six billion people we'll still be emitting far more CO2 than the
Gwobull Warbling narrative claims touched off AGW.

If the narrative were true, the one and only "Solution" would be preparations,
and there are none.

It's self refuting.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 2:15:35 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I don't know anyone who claims that cooling the earth wouldn't be
> > > devastating for humanity.
> > >
> > > If we could warm the planet, we'd be insane not to.
> > >
> > > The planet's norm is "Warmer."
>
> > The "norm" is very abnormal for us humans.

> No it isn't. Homo was a tropical into the sub tropics animal until extremely
> recently in our evolution.

You think "Peking Man" lived in the subtropics?

Besides, the tropics and subtropics would be much warmer than they were back then
if the global temperature became like the Cenozoic "normal" -- which is
about the same as "the planet's norm" since the beginning of the Paleozoic.

Take a look at those graphs whose urls you deleted, especially:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

If we got as high as the PETM there, most of the USA would be too hot
to be habitable, besides having its area shrunk by rising sea levels.
The Southern hemisphere would be a lot worse off: except for a
much reduced Antarctica, the only comfortable place would be Patagonia.

> We needed to evolve brains enough to develop
> technologies to help us deal with the cold, and new mtDNA lines to help
> us keep warm.

Put your brains to work on technologies to help us deal with the heat
in a PETM style environment. Air conditioning makes the outside air
hotter than ever.

> None of this matters anyway. The Gwobull Warbling narrative includes
> "Solutions," and those solutions can't possibly lead to the claimed results
> they want.
>
> Even if we eliminated 100% of all fossil fuels tomorrow, unless we slaughter
> more than six billion people we'll still be emitting far more CO2 than the
> Gwobull Warbling narrative claims touched off AGW.

I've seen many narratives. I'd like to see the one to which you are referring,
with a reference or two.

The amount of CO2 we are exhaling can easily be recycled to equilibrium.
The burning of fossil fuels is on TOP of that, forcing the equilibrium to
go higher and become much harder to achieve, what with deforestation
and polluting of the oceans.

>
> If the narrative were true, the one and only "Solution" would be preparations,
> and there are none.

What preparations do you recommend?


> It's self refuting.

In what way?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Now that I've entered the fray, it will be interesting to see whether
all the people who have been criticizing you on this thread go silent,
or off-topic, all of a sudden.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > I don't know anyone who claims that cooling the earth wouldn't be
>> > devastating for humanity.
>> >
>> > If we could warm the planet, we'd be insane not to.
>> >
>> > The planet's norm is "Warmer."
>
>> The "norm" is very abnormal for us humans.
>
>No it isn't. Homo was a tropical into the sub tropics animal until extremely
>recently in our evolution. We needed to evolve brains enough to develop
>technologies to help us deal with the cold, and new mtDNA lines to help
>us keep warm.
>
>None of this matters anyway. The Gwobull Warbling narrative includes
>"Solutions," and those solutions can't possibly lead to the claimed results
>they want.
>
>Even if we eliminated 100% of all fossil fuels tomorrow, unless we slaughter
>more than six billion people we'll still be emitting far more CO2 than the
>Gwobull Warbling narrative claims touched off AGW.

You keep reposting the above nonsense without even providing a cite.
Is that because you can't find any? Or because you don't know how to
cite?

>If the narrative were true, the one and only "Solution" would be preparations,
>and there are none.
>
>It's self refuting.


--

[Lawyer Daggett]

I venture most consider engaging to be fruitless or worse.

Nevertheless, I'll weigh in on one point so silly it should be
dismissed out of hand. The math.

A quoted average for human daily caloric intake is under 3000/day.
Using spherical cow approximations,
if sugars or starches ( ~CHOH repeats ) 4 calories/gram => 750 grams/day
(same for protein)
if fat ( ~ CH2 repeats ) 9 calories/gram => 333 grams

sugars are 12/30 % carbon, fats are 12/14 percent carbon. CO2 12/44 % carbon

All carbo diet 750 grams/day x 400 days/year x 12/30 x 44/ 12
440 kg CO2 per year metabolized.

All fat diet 333 g/day x 400 days/year x 12/14 x 44/12 => ~ 420 kg CO2 / yr

Round up it's half a metric ton per person.
8 billion people makes it 4 billion metric tons.
Fossil fuel burning generated ~36 billion metric tons in recent years.

Of course these numbers are not representative of the proportion of fossil
fuel consumption behind feeding the word with our modern diets but it
does address the absurd claim about exhaled CO2 overwhelming fossil
fuel emissions.

The thing is, however, that it was obviously absurd and deserved to be
dismissed as the ranting of a kook rather than pretending he's capable
of rational discourse.

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:

> > No it isn't. Homo was a tropical into the sub tropics animal until extremely
> > recently in our evolution.

> You think "Peking Man" lived in the subtropics?

He pops up extremely recently. You place the LCA... when?

And the LCA sprung up millions of years after bipedalism.

You have no reading comprehension and retention, the universe
begins anew with every post if not sentence, according to you,
so it will no doubt come as a shock for me to repeat something
that I've stated quite often: Modern man began with erectus. This
erectus was a topical into the sub tropics species. It had to
adapt, evolve before it could spread into colder regions, just as
numerous branchings had done for the millions of years history
of our line, only they would not be hampered from previous
(older) groups to have done so. There was a breeding wall, likely
the chromosome fusion, that would allow interbreeding with all
future groups that broke away & evolved, but none before them.

> Take a look at those graphs whose urls you deleted, especially:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

It's showing that temperatures were much warmer back then.

> If we got as high as the PETM there, most of the USA would be too hot
> to be habitable

You're out of your mind.

"If we got as hot as it was when modern man arose, and was
living much closer to the equator than the United States, the
Unites States would be too hot!"

No it wouldn't.

But it doesn't matter. IF and only IF there's any truth to the AGW
idiocy, it's unavoidable. The increase in human population all
by itself produces why more CO2 than what supposedly got your
precious Gwobull Warbling started in the first place.

Humans exhale CO2.

You would not only have to reduce people to living early 19th
century lifestyles but you'd have to murder off over 6 billion of
us.

Or, you can just prepare. You say we're warming the planet? So
prepare for a warmer planet.

You want to slaughter more than 6 billion people, I don't. I say
if Gwobull Warbling is real then let's prepare for it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717417486869544960

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> JTEM is my hero

> >None of this matters anyway. The Gwobull Warbling narrative includes
> >"Solutions," and those solutions can't possibly lead to the claimed results
> >they want.
> >
> >Even if we eliminated 100% of all fossil fuels tomorrow, unless we slaughter
> >more than six billion people we'll still be emitting far more CO2 than the
> >Gwobull Warbling narrative claims touched off AGW.

> You keep reposting the above nonsense without even providing a cite.

Why should I? You supposedly know what the Gwobull Warbling claims
are, I shouldn't have to tell you. And you could easily Google how much
CO2 the average person exhales. Then you could Google the present
population of the earth and multiply those two figures together. You'd
arrive at how much CO2 humans are exhaling into our atmosphere. Call
this 'HA1'.

Next, Google the population of the earth when your narrative claims
AGW began. Multiply THAT figure by the amount of CO2 the average
human exhales on a given day. Call this 'HA2'.

Next, subtract HA2 from HA1 and see how big the difference is. Call
this figure 'HA3'.

FINALLY, Google CO2 emissions at the time your narrative places as
the start of AGW. If you need help: The figure is 1 billion tons. But you
should try and prove you're not a total waste product and Googling it
on your own. Call this number 'HA4'.

Okay. So deduct HA4 from HA3 and that will tell you exactly how much
MORE CO2 we are producing JUST FROM BREATHING than the AGW
idiocy claims got Gwobull Warbling started in the first place. Which
means, we can impoverish everybody. We can take fuel, energy away
from everyone on the planet and we still couldn't stop AGW, according
to your own goddamn retarded narrative, unless and until we murdered
off most of humankind.

So it's pointless. There's literally no sense in even trying to stop this
imaginary warming. Instead, pump 100% of all efforts in preparation.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717417486869544960

[JTEM is my hero]

Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> A quoted average for human daily caloric intake

Just Google how much CO2 the average human exhales in a
day.

No sense in obfuscating. Your stonewalling will just be pointed
out and your efforts will be wasted.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717417486869544960

[broger...@gmail.com]

Results of a Google Search of "how much CO2 does a person exhale in a year" lead to

https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg25534022-700-what-percentage-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-is-from-us-breathing-out/

Average person exhales 0.66 kg CO2 per day, over a year the whole human population exhales about 1.7 gigatons of CO2, compared with something like 40 gigatons annually produced from fossil fuels, so human breathing accounts for about 4% of total CO2 emissions caused by humans. Daggett's calculation is approximately correct, although I think he somewhat overestimated the average caloric intake of the human population and thus overestimated the contribution of human exhalation to atmospheric CO2, maybe by as much as a factor of 2.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:05:22 AM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>
> > A quoted average for human daily caloric intake
> Just Google how much CO2 the average human exhales in a
> day.
>
> No sense in obfuscating. Your stonewalling will just be pointed
> out and your efforts will be wasted.

Not satisfied with your own peculiar brand of climate change denialism,
you are now deep in denialism about simple applied arithmetic.

Which step[s] in the computations below don't you understand?

_______________________ repost of Daggett's approximations_______________________

A quoted average for human daily caloric intake is under 3000/day.
Using spherical cow approximations,
if sugars or starches ( ~CHOH repeats ) 4 calories/gram => 750 grams/day
(same for protein)
if fat ( ~ CH2 repeats ) 9 calories/gram => 333 grams

sugars are 12/30 % carbon, fats are 12/14 percent carbon. CO2 12/44 % carbon

All carbo diet 750 grams/day x 400 days/year x 12/30 x 44/ 12
440 kg CO2 per year metabolized.

All fat diet 333 g/day x 400 days/year x 12/14 x 44/12 => ~ 420 kg CO2 / yr

Round up it's half a metric ton per person.
8 billion people makes it 4 billion metric tons.
Fossil fuel burning generated ~36 billion metric tons in recent years.

======================= end of repost =====================

He was erring on YOUR side by rounding up 365.24... days in a year to 400, etc.
When Burkhard gave the sort of cite you are illogically denouncing Daggett
for not providing, his figures were worse for you, not better.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 23:59:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero
>> >None of this matters anyway. The Gwobull Warbling narrative includes
>> >"Solutions," and those solutions can't possibly lead to the claimed results
>> >they want.
>> >
>> >Even if we eliminated 100% of all fossil fuels tomorrow, unless we slaughter
>> >more than six billion people we'll still be emitting far more CO2 than the
>> >Gwobull Warbling narrative claims touched off AGW.
>
>> You keep reposting the above nonsense without even providing a cite.
>
>Why should I?

Since you asked, to show that you're not posting more of your mindless
made-up crap. You're welcome.

[JTEM is my hero]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> Results of a Google Search of "how much CO2 does a person exhale in a year" lead to

We all already knew what the media said. When I gave you point by point
instructions on how you could collect data and build your own conclusion
it was because I knew what the media was telling you, we all know that
the media is programming into your head and I was showing you how you
could come up with your own ideas.

Instead, you cherry picked NOT the data but a media piece telling you that
the media is right.

You are a lost cause, the furthest thing from a living, thinking, science
oriented person capable of making up their own mind.

> Average person exhales 0.66 kg CO2 per day, over a year the whole human population exhales about 1.7 gigatons of CO2, compared with something like 40 gigatons annually produced from fossil fuels

You're excessively dishonest and not just stupid.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hNg6J3X9MbM/m/bSnO4Z1IAgAJ


#1.
How much CO2 humans are exhaling today MINUS how much CO2 was being
exhaled by humans when the narrative claims AGW began.

#2.
Global CO2 emissions estimated at the time AGW supposedly began.


Subtract #2 from #1.

You couldn't even do that. It was too much for you. You failed. You're a
miserable failure. Even cherry picking a horrible "Cite," you failed.

You couldn't read for comprehension, you didn't understand what was said,
you couldn't come up with a test of the claims.

You're a raging imbecile.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Not satisfied with your own peculiar brand of climate change denialism,

Oddly, as the AGW hysteria is based on "climate change denialism" -- you
claim if there's any change then humans have to be responsible, because
the climate would never otherwise change...

> A quoted average for human daily caloric intake is under 3000/day.

Who cares? Look, my little bed wetter:

Google the earth's population in 1830:

1 billion.

Global population today:

7.97 billion.

Difference of:

6.97 billion.

Google how much CO2 a single human exhales while breathing:

2.3 pounds per day.

So, multiple 6.97 billion by 2.3 pound by 365 days per year:

2,925,657,500 tons of CO2.

That's how much MORE CO2 humans are producing just from
exhaling while breathing.This is roughly 3x whatever
industry/households were emitting from burning fuels in 1830.

So if we stopped all burning, if we reduced income levels, if
we reduced lifestyles and lifespans to 1830 levels, according
to what you are defending as fact, we're doomed. We're still
producing way more CO2 then was enough to kick off AGW.

So we have to kill billions of people.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Since you asked

Stop your idiocy. If you're honoring my requests: Drown yourself in a
toilet. And make it the filthiest, most vile toilet you can find. Thanks
in advance.

Here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-clarify-starting-point-for-human-caused-climate-change/

Look at what your fellow mouth breaths are calling the start of your precious
AGW.

1830.

explained it all here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.global-warming/c/BGr7r_kZWrE/m/BjXm2jB_DAAJ

You won't read it, you certainly can't understand it and you're far too
emotionally disturbed to deal with it anyway.

It's a farce. The AGW numbers don't work. The dates are a joke. All the
so called "Solutions" can't work. China isn't playing. For years and years
the media has been lying to us about China... they're closing coal fired
planets which they never closed, cancelled building plants that they
built... China even underwent a massive increase in coal production!

And india has declared coal a "Clean" energy!

China by itself was already beyond the 10x figure some years ago, that's
10x what the narrative claims got AGW started.

There is literally no point what so ever to any of it. Even if you want to
believe in the Gospels of CO2, like you have some need, not one of
the so called "Solutions" map to lowering CO2 much less stopping your
AGW.

Mental cases have so much invested in being "Right" in thinking they
are somehow "Smart" that you call forgot to ask even basic questions.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:36:56 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Not satisfied with your own peculiar brand of climate change denialism,

The brand is very different from the usual. Unlike the usual, it does not deny that
the temperature could eventually rise to the heights of the PETM.

It merely says "So what if it does? I don't care." You deny that the consequences
are worth losing sleep over.

It reminds me of the king of France who cheerfully said, "Apres nous, le deluge."

> Oddly, as the AGW hysteria is based on "climate change denialism" -- you
> claim if there's any change then humans have to be responsible, because
> the climate would never otherwise change...

You are lying. I made no such claim. My beef is with YOUR brand of
denialism -- and now of applied math denialism.

> > A quoted average for human daily caloric intake is under 3000/day.

I didn't say that. "Lawyer Daggett" did.

> Who cares? Look, my little bed wetter:
>
> Google the earth's population in 1830:
>
> 1 billion.
>
> Global population today:
>
> 7.97 billion.
>
> Difference of:
>
> 6.97 billion.
>
> Google how much CO2 a single human exhales while breathing:
>
> 2.3 pounds per day.
>
> So, multiple 6.97 billion by 2.3 pound by 365 days per year:
>
> 2,925,657,500 tons of CO2.

Now comes your applied math denialism:

> That's how much MORE CO2 humans are producing just from
> exhaling while breathing.This is roughly 3x whatever
> industry/households were emitting from burning fuels in 1830.

Even if that is true, it is irrelevant to the fact that fuel burning
is now estimated to produce roughly 40x times what you claim for 1830.

Also, by the time we emerged from the Little Ice Age [LIA], fuel burning
was many times what it was in 1830.

>
> So if we stopped all burning, if we reduced income levels, if
> we reduced lifestyles and lifespans to 1830 levels, according
> to what you are defending as fact, we're doomed.

You are lying.

You had to ignore what I wrote in order to make this lie look true:

"The amount of CO2 we are exhaling can easily be recycled to equilibrium.
The burning of fossil fuels is on TOP of that, forcing the equilibrium to
go higher and become much harder to achieve, what with deforestation
and polluting of the oceans."

You not only ignored it, you deleted it from your reply to the post where I wrote it.

Is Marc Verhaegan only reading your posts and not the ones to which you are replying?

If so, he must be having a gay old time applauding you all the way.

> We're still
> producing way more CO2 then was enough to kick off AGW.

In case you missed it in that "long" paragraph I quoted:

"burning of fossil fuels is on TOP of that" since you are ignoring it,
the following equation seems to be valid:

"kick off the AGW" = slow down the cooling rate, if you are using 1830 stats.

When do you reckon it started to actually start bringing us out of the LIA?

>
> So we have to kill billions of people.

You are slowly devolving into a troll on this thread after having
started like a Jonathan-style kook.

Did you ever see any of Jonathan's posts? He was a real kook, but AFAIK he
never started deleting text to misrepresent the people with whom he was arguing.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS If anyone reading this thinks I am mistaken with my AFAIK, please let me know.

[Lawyer Daggett]

In my defense (not that you suggested such is required), and
to expand upon a separate point (not that you need it), the whole
exercise was largely pointless.

I gave my generous estimates off the top of my head from
numbers that didn't require googling. I know the recommended
caloric intake for men is approximately 2000, somewhat less
for women, and that Americans consume more coming closer
to (and often exceeding) 3000. Highly active people, such as
competitive athletes consume more. The swimmer Michael
Phelps, for example, would consume about 10,000 calories/day.

So 3000/day average was a conservative estimate for the human
population. I know the 4 cal/gram for carbohydrates or proteins
as a nice round number from memory. I've used the calculation
of the number as a teaching example of both simple physical
chemistry and the challenges of applying simple chemistry.

The challenge with producing a precise number is in writing the
equation. Are the products of metabolizing sugar CO2(g) and
H2O(g) or and H2O(l) (gas or liquid)? It matters to a formal
calculation and it isn't trivial to decide which is 'correct'.
Context matters. Meanwhile the 4Cal/gram (nutritional calories)
is adequate for most calculations/estimations needed.

And so the amount of CO2 exhaled was a simple calculation.
I used numbers that made the mental math easy erroring on
the high side as the point was to simply establish the obvious
point that it was less than that from burning fossil fuels.

But there's a more significant point. Exhaled CO2 comes from
food which comes from carbon fixation. If we eat it, that carbon
was likely in the atmosphere within the last year or so. It was
fixed by the wheat, or corn, or sugar beets, etc. that were the
source of your diet. That's not the part that produces a net
increase in atmospheric CO2. It's a brain-dead way to look
at any of the issues involved.

In contrast, looking at the energy/fuel costs of maintaining
the agricultural output needed to produce crops for human
consumption (including feed for livestock), that is a point
worth considering. Inducing crops to grow at high density
requires intense fertilization which requires producing that
fertilizer which currently involves burning fossil fuels. That
production of CO2 isn't part of a cycle that trivially balances.

So it isn't so much that he's wrong about the relative amounts
of CO2 exhaled or produced from fossil fuels, it's that he
completely fails to understand how to frame the question.
And that he substitutes attitude for understanding. But that
has been obvious all along. And no responses from us will
adjust that attitude other than to invoke more antipathy.

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > That's how much MORE CO2 humans are producing just from
> > exhaling while breathing.This is roughly 3x whatever
> > industry/households were emitting from burning fuels in 1830.

> Even if that is true

Why are you arguing at all?

Google it. Find the figures. Do the math.

See this? You're not interested in the truth. You just want to be
"Right" you don't care what the fact are. You're emotionally
invested in already having the answers and NOT becoming the
most well informed that you can be.

Do it. None of this "Even if that is true."

Google the numbers yourself. Work out the math yourself. See
for yourself that it is true.

> it is irrelevant to the fact that fuel burning
> is now estimated to produce roughly 40x times what you claim for 1830.

You've got it backwards. If only like 1 billion tons a year is enough to
start AGW, and that is the claim, then it doesn't matter if we're producing
40 billion or 10 billion or 80 billion... once the ship sinks, it's sunk. Pocking
more holes in the Titanic right now isn't going to make it any more sunk.

It's literally impossibly to stop AGW, according to the very narrative you
so sheepishly defend, without murdering off the vast majority of humanity.

So stop acting out. You have put on display your unwillingness to even
attempt to educate yourself. You didn't work out the numbers, even when
directly challenged, even knowing I would shame you for your stupidity.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717509061438029824

[JTEM is my hero]

Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> the whole exercise was largely pointless.

It was pointless? It didn't address ANYTHING anybody had said.

Here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.global-warming/c/BGr7r_kZWrE/m/BjXm2jB_DAAJ

Why not address THAT, what was actually stated?

You're obfuscating, as always. You're running off at the mouth, babbling
random numbers -- IRRELEVANT "facts" -- and pretending that you're
addressing what was stated in this thread. Why?

Just retire the rotating personalities/sock puppets and accept things as
they are... for a change.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717509061438029824

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Since you asked

Since you're not interested in the answer, not sure why you bothered
to ask the question.


>Stop your idiocy.


You first.

[JTEM is my hero]

Sick. VERY sick but not named jillery wrote:

> Since you're

Again, work out the numbers yourself. You're so pathetic you
have to change sock puppets, post stupid irrelevant shit and
then agree with yourself. Why? Just work out the numbers
yourself. See how self-refuting the AGW myth is. STOP obeying,
STOP mindlessly parroting what the media orders you to
think.

* When did this AGW supposedly begin?

* What were the annual CO2 emissions back then?

* What was the human population back then?

* How much CO2 do humans typically exhale in a given year?

* What is the current population of earth?

* How much more CO2 is being exhaled by humans today than
when the AGW myth has Gwobull Warbling beginning?

There. All spelled out for you. I even gave you all the numbers,
showed you how it works out: Humans exhale more CO2 today
then were emissions at the point when AGW mythology claims
that AGW started. So even if we eliminated 100% of emissions,
we still couldn't stop Gwobull Warbling according to mythology.
We have to kill -- murder -- almost 7 billion people.

OR, now get this; or we can pump all our efforts into preparation.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717509342745804800

[Lawyer Daggett]

I don't know much about this Gwobull Warbling that preoccupies
him. I do know that there are some Chicken Littles that have
an emotional attraction to claiming that humanity ruins everything.
They are not very scientific in their thinking but do cherry-pick
bits here and there to promote their preferred narrative. Meanwhile,
actual scientists do study factors that effect climate change
and study associated data.

These do not place 1830 as the turning point to an impending
catastrophic change. That approximate date does reflect a
point from which climate has consistently warmed.

Actual science tends to point to circa 1900 as a point where
greenhouse effects become observable in connection with
increases in atmospheric CO2 reliably linked to burning of
fossil fuels. Citing 1830 is a misread.

Further, being detectable is distinct from being impactful.
The impactful era begins closer to 1950. This does broadly
correspond to significant acceleration in consumption of
fossil fuels. This is a matter of data. Somebody is fighting
a strawman that is largely derived from a failure in
reading comprehension, but is also clearly an emotional
need to be inflammatory. This is and has been obvious.

On the lighter side, it's looking like it might be a promising
year to consider sailing the Northwest Passage. Whether
that ultimately turns out to be the case for this particular
year will depend on weather but things have been primed.
Of course I mean sail, under wind power. Cruise ships
have a high carbon footprint and are irresponsible towards
future generations.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:15:35 PM UTC-4, JTEM, having devolved from kook to troll, wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> JTEM wrote before he turned full-time troll below:

> > > That's how much MORE CO2 humans are producing just from
> > > exhaling while breathing.This is roughly 3x whatever
> > > industry/households were emitting from burning fuels in 1830.
>
> > Even if that is true

> Why are you arguing at all?

I'm arguing about the fact that the first three lines of text that appear above
are IRRELEVANT to the issues we HAVE BEEN arguing about. And I told JTEM
in the rest of the sentence which he offset by a bunch of lines in his reply.


<snipping a bunch of trolling where JTEM simulated a knuckle-rapping schoolmarm
without the authority an old-fashioned schoolmarm wielded>


The full sentence restored:

>>Even if that is true,

> > it is irrelevant to the fact that fuel burning
> > is now estimated to produce roughly 40x times what you claim for 1830.

That was my reply to JTEM's statement which makes Rip van Winkle look like he
was just taking a short nap:

[repeated from above]

> > > That's how much MORE CO2 humans are producing just from
> > > exhaling while breathing.This is roughly 3x whatever
> > > industry/households were emitting from burning fuels in 1830.

> You've got it backwards. If only like 1 billion tons a year is enough to
> start AGW, and that is the claim,

That is JTEM'S claim, not mine, and I even expressed skepticism
about it in the part JTEM deleted. I maintain that the earth
would have found equilibrium well below present levels, if we
had only produced 3 billion tons a year all the years since 1830.


<snip of things to be dealt with in a separate post>

> It's literally impossibly to stop AGW, according to the very narrative you
> so sheepishly defend,

JTEM is just plain lying here, and is a spineless coward to boot:
in his reply to a post I did yesterday, he had snipped the following
exchange I had with him about narratives:

_____________________________ repost ___________________________

> Even if we eliminated 100% of all fossil fuels tomorrow, unless we slaughter
> more than six billion people we'll still be emitting far more CO2 than the
> Gwobull Warbling narrative claims touched off AGW.

I've seen many narratives. I'd like to see the one to which you are referring,
with a reference or two.

=========================================== end of repost
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hNg6J3X9MbM/m/qil-N98hAgAJ
Re: Ape has warmed the oceans up
May 15, 2023, 3:10:22 PM

Evidently I successfully called JTEM's bluff, otherwise he would
not be lying as above without giving a reference or two.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Now that Lawyer Daggett has produced a narrative
quite different from the one JTEM babbles about --
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hNg6J3X9MbM/m/-BmgfBUhAAAJ
-- it will be interesting to see whether JTEM returns to kook level
after he descended to trolling level in the post to which I am replying.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:01:57 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Sick. VERY sick but not named jillery wrote:
> >
> > > Since you're
> >
> > Again, work out the numbers yourself. You're so pathetic you
> > have to change sock puppets, post stupid irrelevant shit and
> > then agree with yourself. Why? Just work out the numbers
> > yourself. See how self-refuting the AGW myth is. STOP obeying,
> > STOP mindlessly parroting what the media orders you to
> > think.
> >
> > * When did this AGW supposedly begin?
> >
> > * What were the annual CO2 emissions back then?
> >
> > * What was the human population back then?
> >
> > * How much CO2 do humans typically exhale in a given year?
> >
> > * What is the current population of earth?
> >
> > * How much more CO2 is being exhaled by humans today than
> > when the AGW myth has Gwobull Warbling beginning?
> >
> > There. All spelled out for you. I even gave you all the numbers,
> > showed you how it works out: Humans exhale more CO2 today
> > then were emissions at the point when AGW mythology claims
> > that AGW started. So even if we eliminated 100% of emissions,
> > we still couldn't stop Gwobull Warbling according to mythology.
> > We have to kill -- murder -- almost 7 billion people.
> >

FTR, I asked JTEM what sorts of preparation he recommended,
and he deleted my request and libeled me as follows:

"You want to slaughter more than 6 billion people, I don't. I say
if Gwobull Warbling is real then let's prepare for it.

Now he goes into the same spiel that elicited my asking him for a recommendation:

> > OR, now get this; or we can pump all our efforts into preparation.

I suspect that he will go on talking like this without
the slightest hint about what preparations he has in mind -- if any.

> I don't know much about this Gwobull Warbling that preoccupies
> him. I do know that there are some Chicken Littles that have
> an emotional attraction to claiming that humanity ruins everything.
> They are not very scientific in their thinking but do cherry-pick
> bits here and there to promote their preferred narrative. Meanwhile,
> actual scientists do study factors that effect climate change
> and study associated data.
>
> These do not place 1830 as the turning point to an impending
> catastrophic change. That approximate date does reflect a
> point from which climate has consistently warmed.
>
> Actual science tends to point to circa 1900 as a point where
> greenhouse effects become observable in connection with
> increases in atmospheric CO2 reliably linked to burning of
> fossil fuels. Citing 1830 is a misread.
>
> Further, being detectable is distinct from being impactful.
> The impactful era begins closer to 1950. This does broadly
> correspond to significant acceleration in consumption of
> fossil fuels.

To give the devil his due, there was a decade ending in the
late 1970's where temperatures took a downturn, probably
due to reduced solar output. It had science popularizers
[like the publishers of Time Magazine] writing about how
we may be in for another full-blown ice age.

> This is a matter of data. Somebody is fighting
> a strawman that is largely derived from a failure in
> reading comprehension, but is also clearly an emotional
> need to be inflammatory. This is and has been obvious.

There was even a narrative as to how it could begin,
and that was that the Arctic Ocean would become ice-free year-round,
and the Gulf stream would give out before it could warm Europe.
[Sound familiar?]

This would be followed by moisture from the Arctic increasing snowfall
in the high latitudes, with more snow falling than was melting during the summer,
and so the snow would accumulate and eventually form glaciers...

I asked William Hyde, a professional climatologist who sometimes posts to t.o.
about this theory, and said it had been discredited, but I forget just what was wrong with it.

Do you know how? Does anyone reading this?

> On the lighter side, it's looking like it might be a promising
> year to consider sailing the Northwest Passage. Whether
> that ultimately turns out to be the case for this particular
> year will depend on weather but things have been primed.
> Of course I mean sail, under wind power. Cruise ships
> have a high carbon footprint and are irresponsible towards
> future generations.

Hear, hear! If the Vikings had been more ambitious,
they might have done just that about a thousand years ago.

Greenland is returning to how green it was back then,
but I don't think we are quite there yet.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:26:49 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> > These do not place 1830 as the turning point to an impending
> > catastrophic change. That approximate date does reflect a
> > point from which climate has consistently warmed.

> > Actual science tends to point to circa 1900 as a point where
> > greenhouse effects become observable in connection with
> > increases in atmospheric CO2 reliably linked to burning of
> > fossil fuels. Citing 1830 is a misread.

> > Further, being detectable is distinct from being impactful.
> > The impactful era begins closer to 1950. This does broadly
> > correspond to significant acceleration in consumption of
> > fossil fuels.

> To give the devil his due, there was a decade ending in the
> late 1970's where temperatures took a downturn, probably
> due to reduced solar output. It had science popularizers
> [like the publishers of Time Magazine] writing about how
> we may be in for another full-blown ice age.

That talking point is highly overblow.
Time was pushing what is currently known at "click-bait".
Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.

> > This is a matter of data. Somebody is fighting
> > a strawman that is largely derived from a failure in
> > reading comprehension, but is also clearly an emotional
> > need to be inflammatory. This is and has been obvious.

> There was even a narrative as to how it could begin,
> and that was that the Arctic Ocean would become ice-free year-round,
> and the Gulf stream would give out before it could warm Europe.
> [Sound familiar?]
>
> This would be followed by moisture from the Arctic increasing snowfall
> in the high latitudes, with more snow falling than was melting during the summer,
> and so the snow would accumulate and eventually form glaciers...
>
> I asked William Hyde, a professional climatologist who sometimes posts to t.o.
> about this theory, and said it had been discredited, but I forget just what was wrong with it.
>
> Do you know how? Does anyone reading this?

There remain variants that don't require an Arctic Blue Ocean event.
The movements of the Gulf Stream are in flux, as are various transarctic
currents. This last year has had a rather dramatic flux of ice out through
the Fram Strait. The cause of and significance of this is actively debated.
Animated gif, look East of Greenland.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3863.0;attach=363656;image
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3863.0;attach=365368;image

latest gif
https://seaice.de/AMSR2_Central_Arctic_SIC-LEADS.gif

Further, the predominant speculation about a disrupted Gulf Stream is
glacial melt from Greenland. (this can be compounded by surface ice
exported down the Fram) The oceanography that matters depends
on both thermoclines and haloclines --- both water temperature and
salinity impacting how ocean currents climb, dive, or are deflected.
This is further confounded by evolving patterns of surface winds
with complicating feedback features.

Ultimately, there are models. There is no consensus beyond there being
a hard to quantify risk. I happen to follow this as a matter of sibling rivalry.

[JTEM is my hero]

Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.

It favors funding & being published.

As I keep saying: Go rent "a Flock of Dodos." Be reminded
of what everybody used to know, which is that grant money
is politics and NOT science. Displease the politics, get
denied the grant money.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717538001279991808

[JTEM is my hero]

Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> These do not place 1830 as the turning point to an impending
> catastrophic change. That approximate date does reflect a
> point from which climate has consistently warmed.
>
> Actual science tends to point to circa 1900 as a point where
> greenhouse effects become observable in connection with
> increases in atmospheric CO2 reliably linked to burning of
> fossil fuels. Citing 1830 is a misread.

The "Little Ice Age" ended in the 19th century and the earth was
supposed to warm... a little more than it is currently claimed to
have warmed on account of AGW.

The reason why we haven't warmed as much as we were supposed
to, following the end of the Little Ice Age, was fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels do not and can not warm the planet. CO2 is not a so
called "Greenhouse Gas." It is pumped into greenhouses, yes, but
only because plants love it, they breath it in, so to speak, and
greenhouses are for growing plants.

The only way CO2 can add to warming at all is by increasing the
density of the atmosphere, and that doesn't help much...

No, fossil fuels pollute. They pump particles -- "particulates" into
the air, each one constituting a minuscule parasol to shade the
earth. Cumulatively they add up to a large enough area to block a
lot of sun, cast a lot of shade...

Sunny day. Real hot. Step into the shade and you feel cooler.

WORSE than shading the planet is the sulfur.

Here in the U.S. we've been mandating low sulfur fuels since, I dunno.

The 1970s? Certainly no later than the 1980s.

When the sulfur gets into the atmosphere it converts into an aerosol
and bounces the sun's energy out into space. Forget about shading
the planet, there's just plain less sun!

Back in the 1980s sulfur was a massive issue: "Acid Rain."

That's how it comes down. Supposedly it also liked to eat some
Ozone but you'll have to Google that. I don't have any information
on that one...

So fossil fuels COOL the planet!

Volcanoes cool the planet the exact same ways, and for the exact
same reasons, only the biggest ones put our industrialization to
shame.

Google: Volcanic Winter

Again, volcanoes can go off the charts. They make human
activity look like a joke. The bigger ones anyway...

Krakatoa erupted in the late 1800s and it took four years for the
northern hemisphere to recover. Oh, there wasn't a massive drop
in temperature, but there was a drop. The biggest volcanoes, like
Toba, would likely end civilization. Toba erupted about 74k years
ago and it took the northern hemisphere at least a thousand
years to recover...

The southern hemisphere recovers quicker. It's just how the earth
does things...

> Further, being detectable is distinct from being impactful.
> The impactful era begins closer to 1950.

The earth entered a cooling period around WWII that didn't end
until the late 1970s.

> This does broadly
> correspond to significant acceleration in consumption of
> fossil fuels.

Temperatures peaked in the 1930s, the world wide depression,
the drop in fossil fuels.

> This is a matter of data.

There's no such data. None. We saw high temperatures in the
1930s, they dropped around WWII and didn't start to warm up
until the late 1970s.

> On the lighter side, it's looking like it might be a promising
> year to consider sailing the Northwest Passage.

It's been ice free every year since at least 2000, going by all
the predictions.

The Maldives are going to be under a foot of water, starting
like five years ago... Glacier National Park will be glacier
free be the year 2020.

You believe or you fellate Donald Trump and deny that there's
a climate.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717538001279991808

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 1:02:15 AM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>
> > Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.

> It favors funding & being published.
>
> As I keep saying: Go rent "a Flock of Dodos." Be reminded
> of what everybody used to know, which is that grant money
> is politics and NOT science. Displease the politics, get
> denied the grant money.

A sensible post for once. No trace of kookiness,
only a bit of one-sidedness. Grant money is not political
if one is on the cutting edge of research and is not
too outspoken on political matters. Then it is science.

But yes, NAS is very much political, as is the
AMS [American Mathematical Society], even though
they are classed as scientific organizations.

I'm curious to see how Daggett responds.


Peter Nyikos
Who knows a lot about grantsmanship, having had 8 NSF grants
and one SERC grant (UK).

[Lawyer Daggett]

That makes you think you know a lot about grantsmanship?
It's much like saying you know about juries because you've
been on trial. [people who have been on multiple juries
look at each other and roll their eyes]

Spend the those years making two trips a year to Washington
to spend a marathon week reviewing NIH grant proposals
(with inadequate per diems to cover expenses).

Oh of course there's politics, but it isn't like the conspiracy
theorists allege.

You want to know what I think of his retort about "grant
money is politics and NOT science"? I laugh at the dodge.
It reeks of a nutter conspiracy theorist. It's much like where
you dismiss academic research as just flatulence from
the publish or perish squad as it's a lazy bit of intellectual
cowardice to invoke a fuzzy truism to dismiss that which
you are incapable of addressing.

Respective to climate change research, the "it's politics"
retort utterly fails against the reality. That reality is that
research has been done by the fossil fuel industry itself,
by scientific organizations, by governmental agencies
varying from NSF, to NASA, to the Department of Defense.
No, they are not all run by the illuminati or the Tri-lateral
commission, or by (((globalists))) funded by George Soros.

Those disparate groups, private industry, US (and other
Nations science Foundation), NASA, militaries: the
do not share the same politics or objectives. They
even compete. They do in-house work and they farm
it out.

This is all well known public information. You know it.
And yet, you find whining about "politics" to be a
credible retort? And over decades of research.

Could you announce your failure to understand how
the grant politics actually works? It isn't some trite
popularity contest. Moreover, it's diversified into the
hands of hundreds of rotating academics who largely
volunteer their time to review grants. So to play this
"it's politics" line you have to also assert that you are
a lone wolf with integrity and all of these scientists
are in on a conspiracy.

All those disparate groups, and independent academics
have come to a consensus. And it's not just that. The
loon whose argument you like just spewed off enough
nonsense outside of that specific retort to judge him.
Did you see where he denied CO2 is a greenhouse gas
and claimed it was just a gas that gets added to terrestrial
greenhouses? You want to lend that guy credence?

But as much as I can readily dismiss his nuttery, it's
seldom worth the effort because they toss off this crap
like "it's just grant politics" which has this fuzzy reflection
of a half-truth hanging off of it that makes it a lot of
work to refute, while it takes but a mere line of text to
sew the disinformation. It's one of the lies that travels
half way around the world while the truth is still putting
its boots on.

But apparently, it's a lie that you like and find compelling.

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Grant money is not political
> if one is on the cutting edge of research and is not
> too outspoken on political matters. Then it is science.

If your research doesn't have military applications and it doesn't
promise enormous financial returns, it's politics. You obey. You
agree. Or you work at Burger King and forget about grants.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Godless/page/4

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/16/23 9:58 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>
>> Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.
>
> It favors funding & being published.

Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies. Scientists who
valued money over integrity found tons of funding from them.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 14:28:27 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 5/16/23 9:58 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>
>>> Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.
>>
>> It favors funding & being published.
>
>Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies. Scientists who
>valued money over integrity found tons of funding from them.
>

I think you misspelled "pharmaceutical companies". The rest
is accurate. :-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 5:30:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/16/23 9:58 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >
> >> Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.
> >
> > It favors funding & being published.

Prudently, you avoid arguing directly with what JTEM wrote, unlike Daggett.
In fact, despite your "Ha!" you seem to be supporting him.

> Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies. Scientists who
> valued money over integrity found tons of funding from them.

I assume you are talking narrowly about climate change. There's lots
of Big Money besides, like Big Pharma
[see Casanova's reply to you a few minutes ago]
and the social media giants.

However, aren't you forgetting the enormous amount of CO2 that is due
to coal burning? The use of that includes electric companies, which
are Big Money in their own right. How do you compare the influence
of oil companies and electric companies?

There's been a lot of talk about that influence lately, what with
the Supreme Court deciding that the EPA had overstepped its
mandate by the way it restricted CO2 production.


But let's talk about "valuing money over integrity".
The question is, are you overlooking some places where integrity is compromised?

JTEM obviously has his own ideas, but mine have to do
with the breakneck pace at which companies are being
forced to meet drastic demands: only electric cars and hybrids after ______,
only electric cars after _______. They vary from state to state
and Western country to Western country, but not China or India!.

They are pushed by environmentalists who turn a blind eye to the millions of birds
and bats, and billions of insects that are killed annually by wind turbines,
as does the Biden administration.

I wonder whether they rationalize their dubious integrity by
thinking that "survival of the fittest" will eventually produce varieties
of birds, bats, and flying insects whose instincts cause them to avoid those huge blades.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS I almost forgot: the increased price and inconvenience of all-electric cars
will land heaviest on low-income and unemployed people. Do you think you
are sufficiently compassionate towards them?

[DB Cates]

On 2023-05-17 6:36 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 14:28:27 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>
>> On 5/16/23 9:58 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.
>>>
>>> It favors funding & being published.
>>
>> Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies. Scientists who
>> valued money over integrity found tons of funding from them.
>>
> I think you misspelled "pharmaceutical companies". The rest
> is accurate. :-)
>>

Curious, what interest do "pharmaceutical companies" have wrt global
warming? (other than that which everyone should have)
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Lawyer Daggett]

Must be a confusion between global warming and global worming.
This all folds back on the conspiracies involving ivermectin as a
remedy for covid and Fauci and Big Pharma and the suppression
of Real Science by the Main Stream Media. Read all about it in my
post cast at
BREAK NO CARRIER *&&$%#*@#&

See the violence inherit in the system
Help help, I'm being repressed.

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies.

Could you cite some of their scientific grant programs?

That is what we're talking about.

And it's probably a waste of time to point out that Elon Musk,
peddling Gwobull Warbling, banked more cash than any 10
fossil fuel CEOs...

But, again, the issue is the scientific grant process. You're
testifying to the fact that you believe it's all funded by big
oil companies. I would like you to back up your claims.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/17/23 6:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 5:30:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/16/23 9:58 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.
>>>
>>> It favors funding & being published.
>
> Prudently, you avoid arguing directly with what JTEM wrote, unlike Daggett.
> In fact, despite your "Ha!" you seem to be supporting him.
>
>> Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies. Scientists who
>> valued money over integrity found tons of funding from them.
>
> I assume you are talking narrowly about climate change. There's lots
> of Big Money besides, like Big Pharma
> [see Casanova's reply to you a few minutes ago]
> and the social media giants.

True. I recently read _Death in Mud Lick_ and recommend it for an
introduction to problems in which Big Pharma has a big part.

> However, aren't you forgetting the enormous amount of CO2 that is due
> to coal burning? The use of that includes electric companies, which
> are Big Money in their own right. How do you compare the influence
> of oil companies and electric companies?

I have not heard of coal companies hiring public relations firms to deny
global warming, as oil companies have. If you have references to them
doing so, please enlighten me.

> There's been a lot of talk about that influence lately, what with
> the Supreme Court deciding that the EPA had overstepped its
> mandate by the way it restricted CO2 production.

That could easily result from oil company influence, part of which is
insisting that CO2, even in excess, is natural and healthy.

> But let's talk about "valuing money over integrity".
> The question is, are you overlooking some places where integrity is compromised?

What a strange question. I am of course overlooking several billion
places where integrity is compromised, because they are not relevant to
the point I made.

> JTEM obviously has his own ideas, but mine have to do
> with the breakneck pace at which companies are being
> forced to meet drastic demands: only electric cars and hybrids after ______,
> only electric cars after _______. They vary from state to state
> and Western country to Western country, but not China or India!.

That's nothing new. You heard the same thing when seat belt laws went
into effect. Auto companies screamed about how the demands would be
impossible to meet and grossly expensive. They were neither. Whenever
the auto companies said it would add $X to the price of the car, the
actual added cost, after a year or zero, was less than 1/10th that.

> They are pushed by environmentalists who turn a blind eye to the millions of birds
> and bats, and billions of insects that are killed annually by wind turbines,
> as does the Biden administration.

If you follow alternative energy discussions, you would know that the
eyes are not blind. It is a known problem that people are working on.

(And I have never heard of any complaint about insects killed by wind
turbans. If anything, I would expect insects to be safer due to the
deaths of birds and bats.)

> I wonder whether they rationalize their dubious integrity by
> thinking that "survival of the fittest" will eventually produce varieties
> of birds, bats, and flying insects whose instincts cause them to avoid those huge blades.

No, they look for solutions. For example, it appears that bird deaths
can be cut drastically simply by painting one turban blade black.

> PS I almost forgot: the increased price and inconvenience of all-electric cars
> will land heaviest on low-income and unemployed people. Do you think you
> are sufficiently compassionate towards them?

I doubt that's true. Prices will drop; electric cars are not
intrinsically more expensive. Hopefully, the US can scrape back a
portion of the technological leadership which we (at oil company
lobbyists' urging) have by default ceded to China; that will help
employment. And since low-income people are the greatest victims of
climate change, they will benefit the most from anything done to
mitigate the problem.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 21:45:10 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:

Probably none; my comment wasn't WRT climate, but to science
prostituted for gain, paid by commercial interests. The same
would apply to tobacco companies.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 1:02:15?AM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>
>> > Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.
>
>> It favors funding & being published.
>>
>> As I keep saying: Go rent "a Flock of Dodos." Be reminded
>> of what everybody used to know, which is that grant money
>> is politics and NOT science. Displease the politics, get
>> denied the grant money.
>
>A sensible post for once. No trace of kookiness,
>only a bit of one-sidedness. Grant money is not political
>if one is on the cutting edge of research and is not
>too outspoken on political matters. Then it is science.
>
>But yes, NAS is very much political, as is the
>AMS [American Mathematical Society], even though
>they are classed as scientific organizations.

Nowhere do either of the named posters above make any effort to show
that the academic literature which documents the fact of Global
Warming and its causes are even remotely compromised by politics,
nevermind that it would justify the posted global warming denials.
Instead, these posters assert without basis, and pretend that baseless
assertion is sufficient to make the point. Perhaps they use and
support such tactics because they think it worked so well for Trump.

>I'm curious to see how Daggett responds.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos
>Who knows a lot about grantsmanship, having had 8 NSF grants
>and one SERC grant (UK).

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:59:58 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Some spell checkers have an inherent flaw.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Nowhere do either of the named posters above make any effort to show
> that the academic literature which documents the fact of Global
> Warming

When did it start? Give us a date.

How much CO2 was human industry emitting at that point?

You can focus like a laser beam on the media, and keeping
telling yourself that's "Science," or you can learn something.

It's not hard. I spelled out for you, right here in this thread,
how you can prove to yourself that the Gwobull Warbling
narrative is bullshit. That, nothing proposed as a solution
makes the slightest sense, and if you believe the narrative
then PREPARATION is the only course of action left open
to you.

It is bullshit though, this idea that we'd want to cool the
planet during an ice age.. that warmer would be bad, much
less that it is warm.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717611036225748992

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 09:32:30 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>
> > Nowhere do either of the named posters above make any effort to show
> > that the academic literature which documents the fact of Global
> > Warming
>
> When did it start? Give us a date.
>

What you mean by "it"? Scientists reporting, forests shrinking, scrublands
eroding, deserts increasing, glaciers and sea ice melting, massive
wildfires (in Australia, Siberia, Cental Africa, Brazil, California etc.),
extreme weather events? What? What started it and how does it
matter to fact that we are fucked it up? Be specific.

> How much CO2 was human industry emitting at that point?
>

I assume you mean where current upward trend's start?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg>

No one really measured. At that time Ottoman had taught Europeans
the importance of gunpowder and cannons and everybody were
actively arming both on sea and dry land. Also the effectiveness was
tried in Thirty Years War. It was perhaps more bloody and fiery
war than WW I and WW II together. All of timber was used
for charcoal. No one measured ... but after it Europe was empty
of forests and everybody started to mine coal and to conquer all
territories on whole planet.

> You can focus like a laser beam on the media, and keeping
> telling yourself that's "Science," or you can learn something.
>

Your denial is the fossil fuel mining and burning industry lobby,
nothing new in it. Relatively brainless people there and so are
their bullshit supporters. So brainless that it is even unclear
what you deny.

> It's not hard. I spelled out for you, right here in this thread,
> how you can prove to yourself that the Gwobull Warbling
> narrative is bullshit. That, nothing proposed as a solution
> makes the slightest sense, and if you believe the narrative
> then PREPARATION is the only course of action left open
> to you.
>

You have just demonstrated inability to pick what you deny,
if you deny that warmth is bad, deny that it is caused by CO2
emissions or that strong heater is now *ON*, or what?

Otherwise it was clear, "government agencies" lie something.
Reason is because plot of evil reptiloids. Operation was lead by
Barack Obama who is reptilian with fake birth certificate, Bill Gates,
George Soros and Anthony Fauci were supporting them with
needed people and accesses. The only detail you did not explain
is how you proved that? They did it masterfully using alien
UnDetectable++ tech together with undiscovered backdoors in
MS Windows. Such acts do not leave any evidence.

> It is bullshit though, this idea that we'd want to cool the
> planet during an ice age.. that warmer would be bad, much
> less that it is warm.
>

Tell that to countries/regions that are already in trouble with
consequences that it is actually "ice age" and we need more
warmth.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 5:30:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 5/16/23 9:58 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > >
> > >> Actual academic literature tended to favor warming.
> > >
> > > It favors funding & being published.
> Prudently, you avoid arguing directly with what JTEM wrote, unlike Daggett.

Coward.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/17/23 8:31 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies.
>
> Could you cite some of their scientific grant programs?

See Oreskes & Conway, _Merchants of Doubt_.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> I don't know much about this Gwobull Warbling that preoccupies
> him. I do know that there are some Chicken Littles that have
> an emotional attraction to claiming that humanity ruins everything.
> They are not very scientific in their thinking but do cherry-pick
> bits here and there to promote their preferred narrative. Meanwhile,
> actual scientists do study factors that effect climate change
> and study associated data.
>
> These do not place 1830 as the turning point to an impending
> catastrophic change. That approximate date does reflect a
> point from which climate has consistently warmed.

You are way off, if the bar graph at the bottom of a BBC article of yesterday
is anywhere near accurate:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65602293

The graph has a bar for every year since 1850, and the average estimated global temperature
fluctuates around the 1850 mark until about 1925. The graph is backed by an array
of sources, including NOAA and Berkeley Earth climate datasets.

>
> Actual science tends to point to circa 1900 as a point where
> greenhouse effects become observable in connection with
> increases in atmospheric CO2 reliably linked to burning of
> fossil fuels. Citing 1830 is a misread.

So is 1900, if the graph is correct. It does it start to take off ca. 1925, but there
is a pronounced dip at 1948, and we don't get back to the 1947 level until about 30 years later.

> Further, being detectable is distinct from being impactful.
> The impactful era begins closer to 1950.

"closer" in what sense? Looking back from ca. 1977?

> This does broadly
> correspond to significant acceleration in consumption of
> fossil fuels. This is a matter of data.

How does the data you are citing match up with the one
BBC is reporting on?

>Somebody is fighting
> a strawman that is largely derived from a failure in
> reading comprehension, but is also clearly an emotional
> need to be inflammatory. This is and has been obvious.

The BBC article is not without emotional editorializing.
It does, however, tell us that we are at approximately 1.5 degrees Celsius
above the 1850 level for the first time since that year.
Also, just above the graph, we read:

"Scientists use average temperature data from the period between 1850-1900 as a measure of how hot the world was before our modern reliance on coal, oil and gas.

For decades they believed that if the world warmed by around 2C that would be the threshold of dangerous impacts - but in 2018 they significantly revised this estimate, showing that going past 1.5C would be calamitous for the world."

There is a link to another BBC article whose title supports "calamitous,"
but the rest of the article is somewhat less alarmist.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309

It links to a study that I haven't had the time to read, and I hope we can have
an in-depth discussion about it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:27:28 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > I don't know much about this Gwobull Warbling that preoccupies
> > him. I do know that there are some Chicken Littles that have
> > an emotional attraction to claiming that humanity ruins everything.
> > They are not very scientific in their thinking but do cherry-pick
> > bits here and there to promote their preferred narrative. Meanwhile,
> > actual scientists do study factors that effect climate change
> > and study associated data.
> >
> > These do not place 1830 as the turning point to an impending
> > catastrophic change. That approximate date does reflect a
> > point from which climate has consistently warmed.
> You are way off, if the bar graph at the bottom of a BBC article of yesterday
> is anywhere near accurate:
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65602293
>
> The graph has a bar for every year since 1850, and the average estimated global temperature
> fluctuates around the 1850 mark until about 1925. The graph is backed by an array
> of sources, including NOAA and Berkeley Earth climate datasets.

I can't say which specific source I was looking at at the time but
I'm certain it covered at least 500 years and of course used smoothing
as is only obviously appropriate when referencing climate.

I can suggest this as a rather good consensus plot that makes
the point.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-surface-temperature-history-over-the-Common-Era-a-Temperature-anomalies-with_fig1_334668335

I don't have access to the full original article but any uni should.

> > Actual science tends to point to circa 1900 as a point where
> > greenhouse effects become observable in connection with
> > increases in atmospheric CO2 reliably linked to burning of
> > fossil fuels. Citing 1830 is a misread.

> So is 1900, if the graph is correct. It does it start to take off ca. 1925, but there
> is a pronounced dip at 1948, and we don't get back to the 1947 level until about 30 years later.

You are far too influenced by year to year change. The
data must be smoothed. There's been enough time.
Picking an exact inflection point from just a T graph
can be a dubious prospect. Better is to build models and
test for correlative effects. I didn't do that in a rigorous way
but I have browsed articles that have. I don't recall their
methods off-hand but seem to recall correlations with
atmospheric CO2, and solar cycles, and average global
temperature. I seem to recall multiple papers that were
comparing methods and also testing to look for contributions
from major volcanic eruptions. I follow this some but don't
closely watch the controversies over the error sources in
modeling historic global temperature. (I just note that there
are qualified people who do actively test that)

> > Further, being detectable is distinct from being impactful.
> > The impactful era begins closer to 1950.

> "closer" in what sense? Looking back from ca. 1977?

> > This does broadly
> > correspond to significant acceleration in consumption of
> > fossil fuels. This is a matter of data.

> How does the data you are citing match up with the one
> BBC is reporting on?

I judge impactful from the apparent acceleration in increase
in global T. I judge that from being out of the norm observed
for historic changes. This is done in part with hindsight afforded
by looking ahead in time. I fancy I can read graphs for effects
having spent a lifetime doing so with better success than many
of my peers in their estimation.

That still leaves it as an opinion until a model is constructed
to establish strong correlations to factors being modeled.
And that's the closest one gets to establishing causation.

> >Somebody is fighting
> > a strawman that is largely derived from a failure in
> > reading comprehension, but is also clearly an emotional
> > need to be inflammatory. This is and has been obvious.

> The BBC article is not without emotional editorializing.

If you want to equate the BBC's editorial input with that of
'JTEM is my hero', that's your business. Live with the
impression it leaves behind.

> It does, however, tell us that we are at approximately 1.5 degrees Celsius
> above the 1850 level for the first time since that year.
> Also, just above the graph, we read:
>
> "Scientists use average temperature data from the period between 1850-1900 as a measure of how hot the world was before our modern reliance on coal, oil and gas.
>
> For decades they believed that if the world warmed by around 2C that would be the threshold of dangerous impacts - but in 2018 they significantly revised this estimate, showing that going past 1.5C would be calamitous for the world."
>
> There is a link to another BBC article whose title supports "calamitous,"
> but the rest of the article is somewhat less alarmist.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309
>
> It links to a study that I haven't had the time to read, and I hope we can have
> an in-depth discussion about it.
> https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Have it with your daughters. The calamity will belong to their children.
https://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qp5136b560.jpg

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:45:25 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 09:32:30 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > jillery wrote:
> >
> > > Nowhere do either of the named posters above make any effort to show
> > > that the academic literature which documents the fact of Global
> > > Warming
> >
> > When did it start? Give us a date.
> >
> What you mean by "it"?

The start of the temperature rise, of course, as you yourself
noted after the following comments:

> Scientists reporting, forests shrinking, scrublands
> eroding, deserts increasing, glaciers and sea ice melting, massive
> wildfires (in Australia, Siberia, Cental Africa, Brazil, California etc.),
> extreme weather events? What? What started it and how does it
> matter to fact that we are fucked it up? Be specific.

These are all serious issues, and I recommended in my
reply to Daggett that we should all try to discuss the
following long scientific report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

> > How much CO2 was human industry emitting at that point?
> >
> I assume you mean where current upward trend's start?
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg>

That is a rather difficult graph to grasp, but even so, one can see that the caption
to it is downright false:

"(Chart showing the so-called Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were not planet-wide phenomena)"

The graph shows a very obvious stretch of depressed temperatures from ca. 1430 to ca. 1900,
yet it labels the Little Ice Age as ending already at about 1830, probably incorrectly.
It's another example of Wikipedia not something to rely on uncritically.

It's also unclear what data is behind the graph. I suggest you look at the
graph at the bottom of the BBC article that was posted yesterday:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65602293

It tells a very different story, one I described to Lawyer Daggett earlier today.


By the way, that caption is correct about what the graph shows about the Medieval Warm Period [MWP].
I was quite surprised that the somewhat elevated temperatures of MWP extend
backwards all the way to the beginning of CE [1]. It made me wonder whether
Greenland could have been settled way back then, and perhaps earlier.
But it could be that temperatures in the high latitudes were abnormally
high in the MWP compared to overall global temperatures.

[1] "the Common Era," they call it, even though Chinese, Muslims, Hindus
and Mayans have different numberings for their years.


> No one really measured.

We have various proxies for global temperature; that is what the
graphs show all the way back to half a gigayear ago or further.

At this point, I deleted some comments of yours about some interesting side issues
focused on charcoal and forests in Europe. Here in the USA the state of our forests
is very different from that in Europe. Are you aware of the main differences?

> > You can focus like a laser beam on the media, and keeping
> > telling yourself that's "Science," or you can learn something.
> >
> Your denial is the fossil fuel mining and burning industry lobby,
> nothing new in it.

I didn't see any denial in that direction. You are adding details to
what JTEM wrote, but it looks consistent with what I've seen
him say about the priorities of academics.

> Relatively brainless people there and so are
> their bullshit supporters. So brainless that it is even unclear
> what you deny.

It's unclear that he is denying anything that you are criticizing here.

> > It's not hard. I spelled out for you, right here in this thread,
> > how you can prove to yourself that the Gwobull Warbling
> > narrative is bullshit. That, nothing proposed as a solution
> > makes the slightest sense, and if you believe the narrative
> > then PREPARATION is the only course of action left open
> > to you.
> >
> You have just demonstrated inability to pick what you deny,
> if you deny that warmth is bad, deny that it is caused by CO2
> emissions or that strong heater is now *ON*, or what?

Here's what I told him about his peculiar brand of denialism:

`The brand is very different from the usual. Unlike the usual, it does not deny that the temperature could eventually rise to the heights of the PETM.
It merely says "So what if it does? I don't care." You deny that the consequences are worth losing sleep over.
It reminds me of the king of France who cheerfully said, "Apres nous, le deluge." '
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/hNg6J3X9MbM/m/SBGhLV8YAAAJ

In his reply, he made no effort to deny this. He simply snipped it.

> Otherwise it was clear, "government agencies" lie something.
> Reason is because plot of evil reptiloids. Operation was lead by
> Barack Obama who is reptilian with fake birth certificate, Bill Gates,
> George Soros and Anthony Fauci were supporting them with
> needed people and accesses.

JTEM said nothing resembling this on this thread. Are you blindly following
something Lawyer Daggett wrote? He was blindly following
stereotypes about what most climate change denialists
are like, instead of noticing that JTEM's peculiar brand is completely different.

> The only detail you did not explain is how you proved that?

This question illustrates the pitfalls of the blind leading the blind.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 8:51:58 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:45:25 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 09:32:30 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > jillery wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nowhere do either of the named posters above make any effort to show
> > > > that the academic literature which documents the fact of Global
> > > > Warming
> > >
> > > When did it start? Give us a date.
> > >
> > What you mean by "it"?
> The start of the temperature rise, of course, as you yourself
> noted after the following comments:

Why "of course"? Why not the start of anthropomorphic caused
temperature rise instead of just temperature rise. Or why not
the start of temperature rise at a rate of faster than some X,
X being a threshold beyond which adapting to it becomes much
more problematic. Yes, such an X can be fuzzy.

No, he really isn't, not in any meaningful way.
He asserts that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. With that he has forsaken
any credibility. That you don't recognize this, and think he has good
points to make damages any credibility you might have.
There are myriad other signatures in his posts that he's a nutter.
You'll have to decide why you refuse to acknowledge and incorporate
those signatures into your impressions. I think I know why, but
it isn't flattering.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:

> > jillery wrote:
> > > Nowhere do either of the named posters above make any effort to show
> > > that the academic literature which documents the fact of Global
> > > Warming
> >
> > When did it start? Give us a date.

> What you mean by "it"?

Yeah, total mystery and not at all you and your obfuscating as always...

> > How much CO2 was human industry emitting at that point?

> I assume you mean where current upward trend's start?

I mean when did your Gwobull Warbling begin and what were CO2 emissions,
in tons, at that point?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg>

This doesn't answer.

I know what the mythology states. I asked very specific questions.

> > You can focus like a laser beam on the media, and keeping
> > telling yourself that's "Science," or you can learn something.

> Your denial

Lol!

* When did this AGW supposedly begin?

* What were the annual CO2 emissions back then?

* What was the human population back then?

* How much CO2 do humans typically exhale in a given year?

* What is the current population of earth?

* How much more CO2 is being exhaled by humans today than
when the AGW myth has Gwobull Warbling beginning?

* How much MORE CO2 is being exhaled by humans today, due
to the increase in population since the start of your Gwobull
Warbling, than was being emitting from human industry?

The point, of course, is that if you believe your bullshit, if you
believe Gwobull Warbling is real then the only course of action
you can be open to is preparation. It is impossible, according to
your own narrative, for humans to reverse it.

If I scream "The house is on fire! Get out!" but then I turn on the
TV and get comfy on the couch, you'd say that my actions are
not consistent with my words... assuming that you're not
retarded.

Here you're pointing to an invalid "Cite" -- Wiki -- and the media,
pretending that scientists are speaking to you, and even their
words aren't consistent, much less their actions when compared
to their words.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:

> > Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> Ha! The Big Money is in the hands of the oil companies.
> >
> > Could you cite some of their scientific grant programs?

> See Oreskes & Conway, _Merchants of Doubt_.

So no grant programs. I see.

Again, go watch "A Flock of Dodos." See what you used to know
but now made yourself forget.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> The graph has a bar for every year since 1850, and the average estimated

So not even anything as sophisticated as looking at a thermometer!

Do you even read this stuff?

There's no data. Your graphs, you're hysterics aren't based on anything
real. THERE IS NO DATA!

And you even said so, up front: "Estimated."



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 11:52:05 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The graph has a bar for every year since 1850, and the average estimated

> So not even anything as sophisticated as looking at a thermometer!

Thermometers were in use more than a century before 1850. Daniel Fahrenheit died in 1736.
There were others before he invented the mercury thermometer, but they weren't as useful.

> Do you even read this stuff?

Come up with better estimates for average yearly global temperature if you can.

> There's no data. Your graphs, you're hysterics aren't based on anything
> real. THERE IS NO DATA!

There are mountains of data that went into the estimates and thence into the graph.

> And you even said so, up front: "Estimated."

Do you think no data goes into the estimated circumference of the earth at the equator?

Or, for that matter, into the estimated location of the equator itself?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS When I crossed the equator for the first time in a jumbo jet from Los Angeles
to Melbourne, Australia, I got to wondering how the equator is defined.
I came up with five possible definitions, no two of which agree with
each other completely. One of them turned out to be the official definition.

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 19 May 2023 at 06:47:03 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

A proof that his denial is moronic. He can't even tell what he particularly
denies.

> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
> > > jillery wrote:
> > > > Nowhere do either of the named posters above make any effort to show
> > > > that the academic literature which documents the fact of Global
> > > > Warming
> > >
> > > When did it start? Give us a date.
>
> > What you mean by "it"?
> Yeah, total mystery and not at all you and your obfuscating as always...

You can't answer what you mean, because? Me obfuscating? Are
you my glove doll? It is you who is obfuscating and avoiding telling
what he means.

> > > How much CO2 was human industry emitting at that point?
>
> > I assume you mean where current upward trend's start?
> I mean when did your Gwobull Warbling begin and what were CO2 emissions,
> in tons, at that point?
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg>
>
> This doesn't answer.
>
> I know what the mythology states. I asked very specific questions.

I answered that no one measured, so what we have are estimates.
Like every measurement every estimate is based on data and has
precision. No "direct" observation is possible in this universe.

> > > You can focus like a laser beam on the media, and keeping
> > > telling yourself that's "Science," or you can learn something.
>
> > Your denial
>
> Lol!
>

Lolling about your "clever" obfuscation denial?

> * When did this AGW supposedly begin?
>
> * What were the annual CO2 emissions back then?
>
> * What was the human population back then?
>
> * How much CO2 do humans typically exhale in a given year?
>
> * What is the current population of earth?
>

Look those up, is it too hard? The yearly bushfire in Australia alone emits
more CO2 than 2 billions of people exhale per year. The population
of Australia is about 25 millions. Why to avoid talking about such
more major emissions that matter? Why to avoid talking about
fossil fuel burning? Because that is what fossil fuel burning industry
does not want you to talk about.

> * How much more CO2 is being exhaled by humans today than
> when the AGW myth has Gwobull Warbling beginning?
> * How much MORE CO2 is being exhaled by humans today, due
> to the increase in population since the start of your Gwobull
> Warbling, than was being emitting from human industry?
>

Humans exhale only small sub-part of CO2 emission. That has been
already told to you in this thread. If to toss all currently living human
bodies into some not too small lake, say lake Amadjuak in Canada ... :
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/Amadjuak+Lake/@65.005447,-80.6529348,5z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x4dd6def2bc283689:0xe20ea12d59e02e4c!8m2!3d64.8993545!4d-71.1278989!16s%2Fm%2F03d3y1f>
... then the water level would raise only some inches in it and that
would be that.

> The point, of course, is that if you believe your bullshit, if you
> believe Gwobull Warbling is real then the only course of action
> you can be open to is preparation. It is impossible, according to
> your own narrative, for humans to reverse it.
>

I already said I've observed it within my own few decades of
lifetime. The reason is rather wasteful production of various trash,
transporting it back and forth pointlessly, driving around mindlessly,
destroying and poisoning our nature and doing extreme absurd things
with gained energy like for example mining cryptocurrencies. It is
you who is full of bullshit.

> If I scream "The house is on fire! Get out!" but then I turn on the
> TV and get comfy on the couch, you'd say that my actions are
> not consistent with my words... assuming that you're not
> retarded.
>

I do what I can and when I can. I've all my life walked to my workplace,
elected and supported people and organisations who worry a bit
about future sustainability.

> Here you're pointing to an invalid "Cite" -- Wiki -- and the media,
> pretending that scientists are speaking to you, and even their
> words aren't consistent, much less their actions when compared
> to their words.
>

Now you are again mirroring your own obfuscation so you can't even
tell what it is you deny. Benefit of science is that information in it is
peer-reviewed and verified. Look what you talk yourself:
"Gwobull Warbling", that is basically all you can say and the term is
itself alone telling that you are just kook clown.