https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate

See also:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>See also:
>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030

Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
phony equations? Of course not.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>See also:
>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>
>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>phony equations? Of course not.

Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
the shifts you describe were discussed.

On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>See also:
>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>
>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>phony equations? Of course not.
>
> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
> the shifts you describe were discussed.

Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>See also:
>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>
>>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>
>> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>
>Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do anything
to affect climate change.

In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
>
> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
> >>>>See also:
> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
> >>>
> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
> >>
> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
> >
> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do anything
> to affect climate change.

What makes you think we couldn't?

We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
couldn't.

Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
amount of one gas to add to it.

And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
that time without us noticing somehow.

Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
other way for it to leave.

We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.

So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.

David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>says...
>>
>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>> >>>>See also:
>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>> >>>
>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>> >>
>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>> >
>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>anything
>> to affect climate change.
>
>What makes you think we couldn't?
>
>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>couldn't.
>
>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>amount of one gas to add to it.
>
>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>that time without us noticing somehow.
>
>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>other way for it to leave.
>
>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>
>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
climate alarmists.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we need
to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use
modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at all to
do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom I
believe to be correct. There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the past.
Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and climate
change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>says...
>>>
>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>> >>>>See also:
>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>> >>
>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>> >
>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>anything
>>> to affect climate change.
>>
>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>
>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>couldn't.
>>
>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>
>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>
>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>other way for it to leave.
>>
>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>
>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.

>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
>climate alarmists.
Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
either . . .

>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we need
>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use
>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at all to
>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom I
>believe to be correct.
Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
correct?

>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule anyway.
>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the past.
>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and climate
>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic.
You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
hand column here:
https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>> >
>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>anything
>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>
>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>
>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>couldn't.
>>>
>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>
>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>
>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>
>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>
>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>
>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
>>climate alarmists.
>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>either . . .
Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
>
>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we
>>need
>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use
>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at all
>>to
>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom
>>I
>>believe to be correct.
>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>correct?
Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based
opinion.
>
>>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule anyway.
>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the past.
>>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and
>>climate
>>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic.
>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
>hand column here:
>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>>anything
>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>
>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>
>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>couldn't.
>>>>
>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>
>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>
>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>
>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>
>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>
>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
>>>climate alarmists.
>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>either . . .
>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?

>>
>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we
>>>need
>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use
>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at all
>>>to
>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom
>>>I
>>>believe to be correct.
>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>correct?
>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based
>opinion.
You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?

>>
>>>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule anyway.
>>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the past.
>>>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and
>>>climate
>>>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic.
>>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
>>hand column here:
>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>>>anything
>>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>>
>>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>>couldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>>
>>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>>
>>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>>
>>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>>
>>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
>>>>climate alarmists.
>>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>>either . . .
>>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
>
>>>
>>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we
>>>>need
>>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use
>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at
>>>>all
>>>>to
>>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists
>>>>whom
>>>>I
>>>>believe to be correct.
>>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>>correct?
>>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based
>>opinion.
>You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am responding
with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
>
>
>>>
>>>>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>>>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
>>>>anyway.
>>>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the
>>>>past.
>>>>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and
>>>>climate
>>>>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic.
>>>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
>>>hand column here:
>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
>>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about the
>>>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>>>>anything
>>>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>>>couldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>>>
>>>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
>>>>>climate alarmists.
>>>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>>>either . . .
>>>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
>No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.

Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap
deliberately set by the climate alarmists."

All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you
were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off
topic?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
>>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course, we
>>>>>need
>>>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to use
>>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at
>>>>>all
>>>>>to
>>>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists
>>>>>whom
>>>>>I
>>>>>believe to be correct.
>>>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>>>correct?
>>>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason based
>>>opinion.
>>You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am responding
>with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
>If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
>Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
your opinions with?

>>>>
>>>>>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>>>>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the
>>>>>past.
>>>>>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and
>>>>>climate
>>>>>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to panic.
>>>>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
>>>>hand column here:
>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
>>>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about
>>>>>>>> >>>the
>>>>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>>>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>>>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>>>>>anything
>>>>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>>>>couldn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>>>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>>>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>>>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>>>>
>>>>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
>>>>>>climate alarmists.
>>>>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>>>>either . . .
>>>>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
>>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
>>No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
>
>Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap
>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
>
>All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you
>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off
>topic?
You are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
>>>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course,
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>need
>>>>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to
>>>>>>use
>>>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at
>>>>>>all
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists
>>>>>>whom
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>believe to be correct.
>>>>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>>>>correct?
>>>>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason
>>>>based
>>>>opinion.
>>>You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
>>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am
>>responding
>>with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
>>If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
>>Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
>Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
>your opinions with?
Don't be such an idiot. Address the topic.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>>>>>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the
>>>>>>past.
>>>>>>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and
>>>>>>climate
>>>>>>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to
>>>>>>panic.
>>>>>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
>>>>>hand column here:
>>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
>>>>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What about
>>>>>>>>> >>>the
>>>>>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into their
>>>>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the signs
>>>>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And yes
>>>>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>>>>>>anything
>>>>>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot of
>>>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>>>>>couldn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the atmosphere
>>>>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and (B)
>>>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output in
>>>>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the total
>>>>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by the
>>>>>>>climate alarmists.
>>>>>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>>>>>either . . .
>>>>>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
>>>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
>>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
>>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
>>>No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
>>
>>Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap
>>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
>Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about
temperature changes in Antarctica; and you don't like that so are
bullshitting about anything posted being off topic. Have a look at the
Subject of the thread, Tony.

>>
>>All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you
>>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off
>>topic?
>You are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on your
lies you are unable to respond reasonable. Why do you so consistently
lie, Tony?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world a
>>>>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course,
>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>need
>>>>>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to
>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing at
>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists
>>>>>>>whom I believe to be correct.
>>>>>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>>>>>correct?
>>>>>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason
>>>>>based opinion.
>>>>You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
>>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
>>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
>>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
>>>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am
>>>responding
>>>with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
relating to data showing a significant heat spike in Antarctica.

>>>If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
>>>Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
>>Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
>>your opinions with?
>Don't be such an idiot. Address the topic.
I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim that
you know many scientists who do not believe the climate scientists
quoted in the article

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly)
>>>>>>>>>> >>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What
>>>>>>>>>> >>>about
>>>>>>>>>> >>>the
>>>>>>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into
>>>>>>>>>> >>>their
>>>>>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the
>>>>>>>>>> >>signs
>>>>>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And
>>>>>>>>>> >>yes
>>>>>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>>>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>>>>>>>anything
>>>>>>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>>>>>>couldn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the
>>>>>>>>>atmosphere
>>>>>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and
>>>>>>>>>(B)
>>>>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the
>>>>>>>>>total
>>>>>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>climate alarmists.
>>>>>>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>>>>>>either . . .
>>>>>>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
>>>>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
>>>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
>>>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
>>>>No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
>>>
>>>Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap
>>>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
>>Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
>There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about
>temperature changes in Antarctica; and you don't like that so are
>bullshitting about anything posted being off topic. Have a look at the
>Subject of the thread, Tony.
You are the bullshit. You, as usual, keep trying to change the goalposts. Well
stuff off, you keep to your topic for once.
>
>>>
>>>All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you
>>>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off
>>>topic?
>>You are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
>No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on your
>lies you are unable to respond reasonable. Why do you so consistently
>lie, Tony?
I never lie, and you can not disprive that. You, however lie all the time.
If you think the words were too long, I apologise, I tried to keep them short
for you.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course,
>>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>>need
>>>>>>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to
>>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing
>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists
>>>>>>>>whom I believe to be correct.
>>>>>>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>>>>>>correct?
>>>>>>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason
>>>>>>based opinion.
>>>>>You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
>>>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
>>>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
>>>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
>>>>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am
>>>>responding
>>>>with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
>No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
>relating to data showing a significant heat spike in Antarctica.
Yes, opinions. I responded with opinions. That is normal conversation for all
normal people. Your abnormalities are clear.
>
>
>>>>If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
>>>>Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
>>>Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
>>>your opinions with?
>>Don't be such an idiot. Address the topic.
>I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim that
>you know many scientists who do not believe the climate scientists
>quoted in the article
Take it any way you wanty - you are still bullshit.
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>>>>>>>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in the
>>>>>>>>past.
>>>>>>>>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that and
>>>>>>>>climate
>>>>>>>>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to
>>>>>>>>panic.
>>>>>>>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
>>>>>>>hand column here:
>>>>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
>>>>>>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly)
>>>>>>>>>>> >>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>about
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>their
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> >>signs
>>>>>>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?. And
>>>>>>>>>>> >>yes
>>>>>>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>>>>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can do
>>>>>>>>>>>anything
>>>>>>>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate entire
>>>>>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot
>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>>>>>>>couldn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions. While
>>>>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly vast
>>>>>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the
>>>>>>>>>>atmosphere
>>>>>>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and
>>>>>>>>>>(B)
>>>>>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2 output
>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as any
>>>>>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is no
>>>>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2 can
>>>>>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone can
>>>>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the
>>>>>>>>>>total
>>>>>>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space. This
>>>>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>climate alarmists.
>>>>>>>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>>>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>>>>>>>either . . .
>>>>>>>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath you.
>>>>>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
>>>>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
>>>>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
>>>>>No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
>>>>
>>>>Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap
>>>>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
>>>Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
>>There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about
>>temperature changes in Antarctica; and you don't like that so are
>>bullshitting about anything posted being off topic. Have a look at the
>>Subject of the thread, Tony.
>You are the bullshit. You, as usual, keep trying to change the goalposts. Well
>stuff off, you keep to your topic for once.
>>
>>>>
>>>>All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you
>>>>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off
>>>>topic?
>>>You are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
>>No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on your
>>lies you are unable to respond reasonable. Why do you so consistently
>>lie, Tony?
>I never lie, and you can not disprive that. You, however lie all the time.
>If you think the words were too long, I apologise, I tried to keep them short
>for you.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the world
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of course,
>>>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>>>need
>>>>>>>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need to
>>>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing
>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists
>>>>>>>>>whom I believe to be correct.
>>>>>>>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>>>>>>>correct?
>>>>>>>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason
>>>>>>>based opinion.
>>>>>>You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
>>>>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
>>>>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
>>>>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
>>>>>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am
>>>>>responding
>>>>>with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
>>No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
>>relating to data showing a significant heat spike in Antarctica.
>Yes, opinions. I responded with opinions. That is normal conversation for all
>normal people. Your abnormalities are clear.
Tony, you said:
__________
"David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by
the climate alarmists.
Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the
world a better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans
of course, we need to stop polluting the atmosphere with avoidable
emissions, we need to use modern technology in a safe and sustainable
way. But that has nothing at all to do with climate change in my
opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom I believe to be
correct. There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
anyway.
Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in
the past. Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable.
but that and climate change may or may not be related - not yet
proven. I prefer proof to panic."
________________

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:15:09 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
> your opinions with?

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

Earth enjoys long periods of time molded by the slow crawl of wind, water and known
geologic processes. These eras are punctuated by a cyclical catastrophe. There are
three critical aspects to the field of catastrophism: analyzing the evidence of the past
events, trying to explain their mechanism of operation, and trying to predict the next one.
The evidence of cyclical disasters comes in many forms: myth, sediment, fossils, ice cores
and more. Most religions and many ancient cultures describe catastrophe in the past,
the future, or both. In Peru, there is a story of the sun standing still in the sky, and in southern
South America we find myths of the sun setting in the wrong place. On the other side of
the world, Malaysian and Sumatran stories describe a long night they feared would never
end. The Bible, Egyptian legends and other stories from antiquity describe a solar event,
often involving a black sun. Furthermore, while numerous geological features are clearly
the result of slow wearing and tectonic motion, there are surge deposits filled with the
bones of thousands of animals suggesting that for some areas there is an instant
devastation. Amidst sloth-like accumulation of sediment over eons we find rapid deposits
and incredible morphological changes in those layers. Mammoths were found frozen so
quickly that the food in their mouths and stomachs had not decayed. What happens to
cause these disasters?
Cyclical deluges are repeatedly suggested by the evidence, an invasion of the land by
the oceans, inspiring questions of Earth tilting on its axis, and other seemingly impossible
geological phenomena. Is it a coincidence that the “Younger Dryas” plummet into a
deep ice age occurred around the same time as the Gothenburg magnetic excursion?
Why are there impactor microtektites from that period, and surge deposits in the
Americas? What caused the worst period in the “late quaternary megafaunal extinctions”
across the globe?
Why would thriving civilizations in Bolivia suddenly halt work on massive construction
projects around 11,000 to 12,000 years ago? What happened to cause evidence of rapid
death and bones and muck to be piled within a mountain in the Pejark Marsh in Australia?
How else but via great waves would amazing amounts of shells and boulders reach such
great elevations on up-slopes from Wales to the Jura mountains? How did granite blocks
come to be on top of the mountains there, and near Death Valley? The Pampean mud
deposit could only have been caused by a terrible wave. Such great waves would also
4 deposit dozens of feet of sediment and sand across large areas, likely covering up more
evidence than is accessible to scientists today. Other areas would be scoured clean.
The deep-sea canyons running down from continental shelves present even further
evidence of oceanic wash-over. Mainstream science tells us these as caused by turbidity
currents, and this is truly only a satisfactory explanation for small coastal formations. The
only existing videos of in-situ turbidity currents (there aren’t many) show a slow churning
that deposits as much is it carves, and only in sand and softer material - not through rock.
There is no model, theory, or existing claim that the turbidity currents could produce the
vast formations running off the east coast of South America, or into the Northeast Indian
Ocean- scientists largely ignore the features. These canyons are likely run-off features
from the last time the oceans were torn from their beds, and then drained back into them.
https://www.natgeomaps.com/hm-1981-world-ocean-floor National Geographic, 1981.
How do we explain all the evidence? The invasion by the ocean, the instant freezing, the
stories of strange celestial events during cataclysms, and even the evidence of impactors,
geomagnetic changes and strange isotopes found in the cataclysm deposits, all must be
explained. That is the challenge, to explain all the evidence.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC)
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

> Address the content not your deliberate distraction.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

Earth has magnetic reversals and magnetic excursions. Reversals include a flip of Earth’s
magnetic field after long (100,000s of years) epochs, while excursions are rapid flips and
flips-back of the magnetic pole. Both events include an intensity minimum during the flip
that allows space energy to penetrate into the Earth system. Excursions occur much more
frequently than full reversals, somewhere around 10,000 - 15,000 years apart on average.
While some researchers believe the cycle to be relatively exact, everything from ~11,500
years (Walker) to exactly 12,068 years (Douglas Vogt), to 21,000 - 26,000 years
(axial/apsidal precession catastrophism theory), the geologic evidence available today
tells a slightly more complex story of the processes involved.
In modern science, there are some recognized events that paint a scary picture of the
near-term future. Excursions have taken place ~12,000 - 13,000 years ago (Gothenburg),
~24,000 - 28,000 years ago (Lake Mungo), ~33,000 - 37,000 years ago (Mono Lake),
~41,000 - 46,000 years ago (Laschamp), ~60,000 years ago (Greenland/Vostok), and
~72,000 years ago (Toba). A rapid look at the most recent events shows ~12,000 to 13,000
years between them, meaning that the cycle is approximately due to reset now. While
the exact dating of these events has endured considerable disagreement (as evidenced
by the uncertainty of time in which they are supposed to have occurred) they tell a story
of a recurring magnetic change on our planet, one that matches other cycle timelines
and the evidence of disaster.
The forecast that another event is due soon is based on the historical events, but it is also
complimented by what we actually see today: the exact changes in Earth’s magnetic
field we would expect at the beginning of the next magnetic excursion. The magnetic
field strength is weakening and the magnetic poles are shifting. This ongoing shift has
been observed and reported by NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the USGS
and others, and yet its significance has been downplayed in popular science media and
the most important journals, even while world magnetic models require unplanned
updates (article pictured) as the shift accelerate

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:49:58 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I can only assume that having been called on your
> lies you are unable to respond reasonable.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

Chan Thomas was the first to mention galactic magnetism as the cause of ‘unlocking’
the crust. He suggested that as the solar system goes through the galactic magnetic
reversal and ‘null zone,’ the electromagnetic equilibrium at the Low-Velocity Zone will fail
and the crust will shift. This is incredibly close to the ultimate answer we will propose in this
work, but it will ultimately fail to explain the evidence of impactors and strange isotopes,
which DID exist in scientific literature during his life and should have been addressed. If
you are familiar with catastrophism theories about crossing the “galactic plane,” Chan
Thomas’ version is the same basic idea, but you likely heard his misguided version based
on crossing the galactic equator, which is not where the galactic magnetic reversal
occurs.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC)
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

> I apologise, I tried to keep them short
> for you.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

The Laschamp excursion (4 cycles ago) was actually the first magnetic excursion to be
discovered by scientists. It was a global catastrophe and has been confirmed more than
any other event. This event likely caused the downfall of the Neanderthal species.
The Toba event (~72,000 years ago) coincided with tremendously bad volcanic activity,
widespread extinctions, and another star trespassing in our solar system. It is worth
knowing that when Scholz’s star (a red binary, possibly with planets) passed through our
solar system ~72,000 years ago it was likely an amazing sight for all pre-humans alive at
the time. It also was a terrible event due to the x-rays and cosmic rays from the star system.
A binary star system literally passed through the outer reach of ours. The event was so
atrocious, and with the red skies from Toba’s eruption, the new red star in the sky was
never forgotten. It was often blamed for subsequent events that ancient people couldn’t
otherwise explain. Scholz’s binary, “Nibiru”, is now ~18 light years away, and is not locked
into orbit with our sun. Perhaps there was in fact no geomagnetic excursions between
Toba and Blake, and the passing of the binary system 72,000 years ago set the current
cycle duration in place. We will likely never know the answer to that one. If there was a
planetary shake-up during the stellar encounter it is a match for Velikovky’s version of the
disaster.
33
Back to the question at hand: What exactly is happening to cause volcanic, impactor,
oceanic and other evidence of these events during the magnetic excursions? To explain
all the evidence, we must first identify the key pieces of evidence to
be explained

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:07:10 +1200
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

> So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were not
> facts, they were opinion.
https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

The sun shines down on the Earth with life-giving light that looks yellow and white as it
crosses the sky, but one day that will change. Dust, gas, and plasma will begin to
accumulate in the sun’s atmosphere, causing a dimming to a reddish hue. When the sun
darkens almost black from accumulation, the light and solar plasma cannot escape, and
the energetic pressure inside the solar atmosphere grows. The pressure eventually
overcomes the outer shell, erupting in a micronova.
The initial eruption will produce a bright flash of visible, UV and x-ray light, which may
thermally and energetically destroy parts of the biosphere. This is the burning aspect
described by the Buddhist Sermon of the Seven Sons. This phase will not last for very long,
a few minutes at most or even possibly just a few seconds. For the next 4-20 hours (until
the micronova shockwave arrives at Earth), energetic protons and electrons will be
bombarding the upper atmosphere, delivering an incredible excess of electricity.
Ambient atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, and atmospheric pressure cells
connected to the global electric circuit will all be amplified.
When the shockwave arrives, it will be a long impact, hours to days to even weeks. At first
the shockwave will be comprised mostly of plasma, accelerated to high speeds, which
43
would induce electrical disruptions on Earth that would destroy every power grid, create
more-unstable atmospheric electricity conditions, and could even cause a sun-facing
magnetic field collapse, bringing an arc discharge (similar to a magnetar burst) from the
sky to the ground (pictured). It will also begin to bring the isotopes
of the nova.

The bombardment will transition from plasma to dust and other molecules as the second
component of the wave arrives, which will have the isotopes of heavy elements in the
nova attached to the dust, and which will present itself in vastly non-homogenous ways.
If you are facing the sun when the plasma arrives, it may be nighttime when the dust and
heavier components hit. The turning of the Earth through the phases of the shockwave
impact means that the isotope distribution is different across the globe. This is missed in all
dating techniques.
At this point, the dust begins to block out the sky, and it lingers in the inner solar system
while the larger pieces of the shell arrive- the impactors. Silicate material like glass and
congealed/cooled plasma and dust that have agglomerated in the shell expansion will
arrive at the end of the shockwave, and the bombardment here likely plays a key role in
how bad of a disaster the Earth actually faces. If larger pieces hit the Earth, it could turn
a bad event into a cataclysm.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:36:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:15:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 06:49:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:17:00 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In article <part1of1.1.c83HkCzAf39UwQ@ue.ph>,
>>>>>>>>>>>lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
>>>>>>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >On 2024-04-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:35:48 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly)
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/antarctic-heat-spike-shocks-climate
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/new-oil-and-gas-to-quadruple-by-2030
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>Utter horseshit, they are just acting out a pantomime. What
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>about
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>record cold temperatures in East Antarctica, was that put into
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>their
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>phony equations? Of course not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Massive variability on a relatively short period is one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>signs
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> of a significant change - did you listen to the discussion?.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>And
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>yes
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the shifts you describe were discussed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Oh good the oceans will start to boil again then.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some heads need boiling, especially those who believe that we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>do
>>>>>>>>>>>>anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> to affect climate change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What makes you think we couldn't?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We can poison rivers, dig up mountains, fell forests, eradicate
>>>>>>>>>>>entire
>>>>>>>>>>>species. Surely if we tried we could affect the atmosphere. It would
>>>>>>>>>>>require work on a truly massive scale of course, but there are a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>us and if we all did our part there is no good reason to believe we
>>>>>>>>>>>couldn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Total emissions from fossil fuels since 1870 are standing at around
>>>>>>>>>>>1,737,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Land use changes (draining swamps,
>>>>>>>>>>>felling forests, etc) have also produced significant emissions.
>>>>>>>>>>>While
>>>>>>>>>>>the atmosphere may be big, however you look at it that is a truly
>>>>>>>>>>>vast
>>>>>>>>>>>amount of one gas to add to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And in that time we can see the concentration of CO2 in the
>>>>>>>>>>>atmosphere
>>>>>>>>>>>has risen from 287ppm to 421ppm. The amount of one gas in the
>>>>>>>>>>>atmosphere
>>>>>>>>>>>increasing by over 50% is also quite a substantial change. If this
>>>>>>>>>>>increase was natural you'd have to somehow explain (A) that our
>>>>>>>>>>>emissions aren't going into the air when quite clearly they are and
>>>>>>>>>>>(B)
>>>>>>>>>>>that some other natural source has massively increased its CO2
>>>>>>>>>>>output
>>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>>that time without us noticing somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Earth looses heat to space via infrared radiation just the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>any
>>>>>>>>>>>other planet - you can't conduct heat through a vacuum so there is
>>>>>>>>>>>no
>>>>>>>>>>>other way for it to leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that CO2
>>>>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>>>>cause a planet to be heated far beyond what solar radiation alone
>>>>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>>>>explain - our extreme example of this is Venus which despite being
>>>>>>>>>>>further from the sun than Mercury has higher surface temperatures.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So: We're emitting a vast amount of CO2 and this has increased the
>>>>>>>>>>>total
>>>>>>>>>>>amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%. This gas absorbs
>>>>>>>>>>>infrared radiation that would have otherwise been lost to space.
>>>>>>>>>>>This
>>>>>>>>>>>*should* have a measurable effect on the climate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>climate alarmists.
>>>>>>>>>Like our current Government do you mean Tony? Can you identify one of
>>>>>>>>>these "climate alarmists"? It is not clear who you are giving respect
>>>>>>>>>either . . .
>>>>>>>>Changing the subject is beneath reasonable people, nothing is beneath
>>>>>>>>you.
>>>>>>>You raised the expression "climate alarmists" - if you cannot give an
>>>>>>>example (or even a definition), then you were clearly off topic. Who
>>>>>>>are the "climate alarmists" you are referring to?
>>>>>>No, you are diverting the topic. As you so often do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tony, you said: "David, with respect you are falling into the trap
>>>>>deliberately set by the climate alarmists."
>>>>Address the content not your deliberate distraction.
>>>There was no distraction - Climate scientists are concerned about
>>>temperature changes in Antarctica; and you don't like that so are
>>>bullshitting about anything posted being off topic. Have a look at the
>>>Subject of the thread, Tony.
>>You are the bullshit. You, as usual, keep trying to change the goalposts.
>>Well
>>stuff off, you keep to your topic for once.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All I have done is asked you to identify one of these people - if you
>>>>>were not off topic how can seeking information about your words be off
>>>>>topic?
>>>>You are off topic and I have used short words to explain why.
>>>No you have not. I can only assume that having been called on your
>>>lies you are unable to respond reasonable. Why do you so consistently
>>>lie, Tony?
>>I never lie, and you can not disprive that. You, however lie all the time.
>>If you think the words were too long, I apologise, I tried to keep them short
>>for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the
>>>>>>>>>>world
>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans of
>>>>>>>>>>course,
>>>>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>>>>need
>>>>>>>>>>to stop polluting the atmposphere with avoidable emissions, we need
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>>>>modern technology in a safe and sustainable way. But that has nothing
>>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>do with climate change in my opinion and the opinion of many
>>>>>>>>>>scientists
>>>>>>>>>>whom I believe to be correct.
>>>>>>>>>Could you name a few of those scientists whom you believe to be
>>>>>>>>>correct?
>>>>>>>>Done here multiple times. Do your own research. Or provide some reason
>>>>>>>>based opinion.
>>>>>>>You asserted that you shared your opinion with "many scientists whom I
>>>>>>>believe to be correct" - all I asked was that you name a few of those.
>>>>>>>If you refuse, what conclusion do you believe readers are entitled to
>>>>>>>draw from an assertion that the person making it cannot support?
>>>>>>This thread was started with links to opinion and no sciencve. I am
>>>>>>responding
>>>>>>with opinion - entitrely appropriate.
>>>No it started with an article about views of climate scientists
>>>relating to data showing a significant heat spike in Antarctica.
>>Yes, opinions. I responded with opinions. That is normal conversation for all
>>normal people. Your abnormalities are clear.
>Tony, you said:
>__________
>"David, with respect you are falling into the trap deliberately set by
>the climate alarmists.
>Nobody that I know of, including myself, is opposed to making the
>world a better place. We need to stop throwing trash into the oceans
>of course, we need to stop polluting the atmosphere with avoidable
>emissions, we need to use modern technology in a safe and sustainable
>way. But that has nothing at all to do with climate change in my
>opinion and the opinion of many scientists whom I believe to be
>correct. There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
>anyway.
>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in
>the past. Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable.
>but that and climate change may or may not be related - not yet
>proven. I prefer proof to panic."
>________________
>
>So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were not
>facts, they were opinion. Use of modern technologies having nothing to
>do with climate change is your opinion, but so it now appears is your
>assertion that it is also the opinion of many scientists. The
>assertion that the CO2 rise will cause serious climate change is an
>opinion. With all those opinions, it is then surprising that you
>should say "I prefer proof to panic"
>
>News for you Tony, scientists prefer proof to both opinion and panic -
>but it seems your imagination can dream up scientific support for
>anything you dream may be true . . .
>
>Your opinions are a waste of time, Tony.
You are wrong. My opiniolns eclipse yours because mine are honest and yours are
politically motivated..
As I have patiently explained, this entire thread is opinion based therefore
your comments are worthy of nothing more than derision.
Go boil your head, it won't hurt you.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>If you want a scientific discussion then start one.
>>>>>>Oh, and do stop your patronising (without cause) nonsense.
>>>>>Are you admitting that you do not know any scientists that you share
>>>>>your opinions with?
>>>>Don't be such an idiot. Address the topic.
>>>I take that as an admission that you cannot support your claim that
>>>you know many scientists who do not believe the climate scientists
>>>quoted in the article
>>Take it any way you wanty - you are still bullshit.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There is no evidence that CO2 rise will cause serious
>>>>>>>>>>climate change. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule
>>>>>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>Some scientists believe they have shown that CO2 has been higher in
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>past.
>>>>>>>>>>Nobody is suggesting that poisoning rivers is acceptable. but that
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>climate
>>>>>>>>>>change may or may not be related - not yet proven. I prefer proof to
>>>>>>>>>>panic.
>>>>>>>>>You may be interested in the Most Used Climate Myths - see the left
>>>>>>>>>hand column here:
>>>>>>>>>https://skepticalscience.com/ClimateAdam-is-global-warming-speeding-up.html
>>>>>>>>No thanks - I am not in the business of myths, unlike you.
>
>Indeed, you prefer your own opinions over anything else . . .
>
>Be happy in your lonely isolation from reality, Tony.
Reality is my staff, and your fantasy.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:50:52 -0600, Phil Hendry's Chop shop
<jon@than.ball> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:07:10 +1200
>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were not
>> facts, they were opinion.
>https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
>
>The sun shines down on the Earth with life-giving light that looks yellow and white as it
>crosses the sky, but one day that will change. Dust, gas, and plasma will begin to
>accumulate in the sun’s atmosphere, causing a dimming to a reddish hue. When the sun
>darkens almost black from accumulation, the light and solar plasma cannot escape, and
>the energetic pressure inside the solar atmosphere grows. The pressure eventually
>overcomes the outer shell, erupting in a micronova.
>The initial eruption will produce a bright flash of visible, UV and x-ray light, which may
>thermally and energetically destroy parts of the biosphere. This is the burning aspect
>described by the Buddhist Sermon of the Seven Sons. This phase will not last for very long,
>a few minutes at most or even possibly just a few seconds. For the next 4-20 hours (until
>the micronova shockwave arrives at Earth), energetic protons and electrons will be
>bombarding the upper atmosphere, delivering an incredible excess of electricity.
>Ambient atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, and atmospheric pressure cells
>connected to the global electric circuit will all be amplified.
>When the shockwave arrives, it will be a long impact, hours to days to even weeks. At first
>the shockwave will be comprised mostly of plasma, accelerated to high speeds, which
>43
>would induce electrical disruptions on Earth that would destroy every power grid, create
>more-unstable atmospheric electricity conditions, and could even cause a sun-facing
>magnetic field collapse, bringing an arc discharge (similar to a magnetar burst) from the
>sky to the ground (pictured). It will also begin to bring the isotopes
>of the nova.
>
>The bombardment will transition from plasma to dust and other molecules as the second
>component of the wave arrives, which will have the isotopes of heavy elements in the
>nova attached to the dust, and which will present itself in vastly non-homogenous ways.
>If you are facing the sun when the plasma arrives, it may be nighttime when the dust and
>heavier components hit. The turning of the Earth through the phases of the shockwave
>impact means that the isotope distribution is different across the globe. This is missed in all
>dating techniques.
>At this point, the dust begins to block out the sky, and it lingers in the inner solar system
>while the larger pieces of the shell arrive- the impactors. Silicate material like glass and
>congealed/cooled plasma and dust that have agglomerated in the shell expansion will
>arrive at the end of the shockwave, and the bombardment here likely plays a key role in
>how bad of a disaster the Earth actually faces. If larger pieces hit the Earth, it could turn
>a bad event into a cataclysm.

It is an interesting book, Jonathan (assuming that may be your name).
My view is that you are correct that there are a number of things
happening, with different cycles, and not all of them are able to be
affected by mankind in the short term. On a quick flick through it
does not appear to specifically cover climate science, in the sense of
the effect of current activity on longer term trends. A worrying issue
is the moving of the magnetic poles - which may trigger a reversal of
currents around the pacific; if so NZ would be affected by warmer air
coming down from the equator, and the UK would have their climate
affected by water from the Arctic. There are theories that the two
poles switch every few million years, which may also be difficult to
live through, as would a partial re-alignment of the world in relation
to which parts of the world are closest to the sun as earth rotates.

No science is exact, but on balance I believe it offers a lot more
than "reckons" from the likes of Mike Hosking who appears to be avidly
followed by a few posters to this group. In particular, we have had a
lot of real scientists from around the world look at various issues
regarding man-made gasses affecting our atmosphere, with consequential
changes to technology (e.g. refrigerators), and over time a consensus
emerging about other issues, leading to widespread international
agreement about cutting CO2 emissions; with a clear majority in
parliament having supported that position for quite a long time now.
Importantly, we have signed up to international agreements regarding
meeting targets for emission reductions, with clear financial
penalties for not achieving agreed goals, but also an implicit threat
to trade goals should be demonstrably make changes that act against
those goals. Opening up a coal mine for example may lose us trade,
possibly from the EU, UK, USA or even China. So whether persuaded by
the scientists or by short term political wishes (eg Shane Jones
wanting to open a coal mine); we can only hope that he gets the
message (possibly from the Foreign Minister) to pull his head in.
Sadly Luxon is unlikely to show leadership unless it is forced on him,
and Seymour has his own agenda. . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:50:52 -0600, Phil Hendry's Chop shop
><jon@than.ball> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:07:10 +1200
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So all of that was just your opinion - the climate alarmists were not
>>> facts, they were opinion.
>>https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
>>
>>The sun shines down on the Earth with life-giving light that looks yellow and
>>white as it
>>crosses the sky, but one day that will change. Dust, gas, and plasma will
>>begin to
>>accumulate in the sun�s atmosphere, causing a dimming to a reddish hue. When
>>the sun
>>darkens almost black from accumulation, the light and solar plasma cannot
>>escape, and
>>the energetic pressure inside the solar atmosphere grows. The pressure
>>eventually
>>overcomes the outer shell, erupting in a micronova.
>>The initial eruption will produce a bright flash of visible, UV and x-ray
>>light, which may
>>thermally and energetically destroy parts of the biosphere. This is the
>>burning aspect
>>described by the Buddhist Sermon of the Seven Sons. This phase will not last
>>for very long,
>>a few minutes at most or even possibly just a few seconds. For the next 4-20
>>hours (until
>>the micronova shockwave arrives at Earth), energetic protons and electrons
>>will be
>>bombarding the upper atmosphere, delivering an incredible excess of
>>electricity.
>>Ambient atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, and atmospheric pressure
>>cells
>>connected to the global electric circuit will all be amplified.
>>When the shockwave arrives, it will be a long impact, hours to days to even
>>weeks. At first
>>the shockwave will be comprised mostly of plasma, accelerated to high speeds,
>>which
>>43
>>would induce electrical disruptions on Earth that would destroy every power
>>grid, create
>>more-unstable atmospheric electricity conditions, and could even cause a
>>sun-facing
>>magnetic field collapse, bringing an arc discharge (similar to a magnetar
>>burst) from the
>>sky to the ground (pictured). It will also begin to bring the isotopes
>>of the nova.
>>
>>The bombardment will transition from plasma to dust and other molecules as
>>the second
>>component of the wave arrives, which will have the isotopes of heavy elements
>>in the
>>nova attached to the dust, and which will present itself in vastly
>>non-homogenous ways.
>>If you are facing the sun when the plasma arrives, it may be nighttime when
>>the dust and
>>heavier components hit. The turning of the Earth through the phases of the
>>shockwave
>>impact means that the isotope distribution is different across the globe.
>>This is missed in all
>>dating techniques.
>>At this point, the dust begins to block out the sky, and it lingers in the
>>inner solar system
>>while the larger pieces of the shell arrive- the impactors. Silicate material
>>like glass and
>>congealed/cooled plasma and dust that have agglomerated in the shell
>>expansion will
>>arrive at the end of the shockwave, and the bombardment here likely plays a
>>key role in
>>how bad of a disaster the Earth actually faces. If larger pieces hit the
>>Earth, it could turn
>>a bad event into a cataclysm.
>
>It is an interesting book, Jonathan (assuming that may be your name).
>My view is that you are correct that there are a number of things
>happening, with different cycles, and not all of them are able to be
>affected by mankind in the short term. On a quick flick through it
>does not appear to specifically cover climate science, in the sense of
>the effect of current activity on longer term trends. A worrying issue
>is the moving of the magnetic poles - which may trigger a reversal of
>currents around the pacific; if so NZ would be affected by warmer air
>coming down from the equator, and the UK would have their climate
>affected by water from the Arctic. There are theories that the two
>poles switch every few million years, which may also be difficult to
>live through, as would a partial re-alignment of the world in relation
>to which parts of the world are closest to the sun as earth rotates.
>
>No science is exact, but on balance I believe it offers a lot more
>than "reckons" from the likes of Mike Hosking who appears to be avidly
>followed by a few posters to this group. In particular, we have had a
>lot of real scientists from around the world look at various issues
>regarding man-made gasses affecting our atmosphere, with consequential
>changes to technology (e.g. refrigerators), and over time a consensus
>emerging about other issues, leading to widespread international
>agreement about cutting CO2 emissions; with a clear majority in
>parliament having supported that position for quite a long time now.
>Importantly, we have signed up to international agreements regarding
>meeting targets for emission reductions, with clear financial
>penalties for not achieving agreed goals, but also an implicit threat
>to trade goals should be demonstrably make changes that act against
>those goals. Opening up a coal mine for example may lose us trade,
>possibly from the EU, UK, USA or even China. So whether persuaded by
>the scientists or by short term political wishes (eg Shane Jones
>wanting to open a coal mine); we can only hope that he gets the
>message (possibly from the Foreign Minister) to pull his head in.
>Sadly Luxon is unlikely to show leadership unless it is forced on him,
>and Seymour has his own agenda. . . .
I am no fan of Mike Hosking and your assumptions are, as always, defective.
There are real scientists that argue the opposite to you and none that you have
provided that support your grandiose utterances.
You are still providng no more than opinion, and anybody who responds with
opinion is on topic and on track.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 01:04:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

> Reality is my staff, and your fantasy.

Then THIS is your marker beacon.

Here's the collapsing magnetosphere proofs again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geomagnetic_axial_dipole_strength.svg

Here's the other 250 year run chart, it's even worse!

https://twitter.com/CPoppino/status/1776384293268590834/photo/1

And:

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Earth-dipole-moment.jpg

Now we're seeing a 9,000 year run!

Mercy!

This is what happens when the planet regularly loses it's "sun shade".
And the best/worst is yet to come - enjoy!

;-)))))