Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The climate crisis grows exponentially.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:44:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: kymhorsell.com
Sender: R Kym Horsell <kym@otaku.sdf.org>
Message-ID: <veretb$agr$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <ve1sfa$2hl10$1@paganini.bofh.team> <ve3ebj$278tk$5@dont-email.me> <ve6e3q$32o8v$1@paganini.bofh.team> <ve8o2i$36dpv$3@dont-email.me> <ve9d4a$3cclq$1@paganini.bofh.team> <cPcOO.828497$Z7Y1.807618@fx14.ams4> <vefovm$555i$1@paganini.bofh.team> <8ONOO.473316$f3ea.182409@fx09.ams4> <vegu3j$nv7u$8@dont-email.me> <vehmgi$86rb$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vei77t$12k3i$1@dont-email.me> <vek84k$h77n$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vem99v$1prdu$6@dont-email.me> <vemc9b$drq$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <%%1QO.3362042$EVn.772513@fx04.ams4> <ver7lj$2pq6j$6@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: kymhorsell@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:44:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="10779"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.2-20221225 ("Pittyvaich") (NetBSD/9.3 (amd64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vs/vvpfTZsYsahedb3Khpl7wOaU= sha256:ZLv9LKnU3GRIEQgXny4e1vieU4u/t551HdFHo7Q41wk=
	sha1:CCFjiyqGqA4MBnqy7rOK2PNIOZs= sha256:IFzIJJZt1oB+MrX3r66z+Gt+4p383sUhOPQe6gCE03U=
Bytes: 5895
Lines: 81

In alt.global-warming Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Paul /D\" <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote in message 
> news:%%1QO.3362042$EVn.772513@fx04.ams4...
>> Le 15/10/2024 ?? 20:28, R Kym Horsell a ??crit :
>>> You can't "prove" anything to a nitwit. In this case a
>>> disingenuous nitwit.
>> You have to prove what you allegate, even if some of your contradictors 
>> won't be convinced.
>> Scout's argument was : "Because you've already admitted that "warm period" 
>> occur naturally so how can you establish this isn't natural? "
>> So : what makes you so sure that, though previous climate fluctuations 
>> were "natural", the modern one is not.
> Bingo.
....

Translation:The earth looks flat. I think it is flat. That's
what my daddy told me. So it must BE flat.  Anyway I've been
asleep since 1950. Yadda yadda yadda.


In the past changes in atm GHG have slowly changed climate over 1000s
of millions of years.
Exactly the same thing has been done by burning fossil fuels for
the past 170+ years and raising atm CO2 by 50% over pre 1850 levels.
The rise in av global temps exactly matches expectations.
The isotopic fingerprint of the atm CO2 and CH4 exactly match the
amount of fossil fuele burned.
The fossil companies have freely admitted these things.
Every scientit knows it, even if some downplay a change in 1-2 deg of
global temp.


-- 
Exxon Climate Modeler Brian Flannery And New York University Professor
Martin Hoffert (1985): Consensus CO2 Warming: Transient climate models
currently available, when run with standard scenarios of fossil fuel
CO2 emissions, indicate a global warming of the order of 1 [degree
Celsius] by the year 2000, relative to the year 1850, and an
additional 2-5 [degrees Celsius] warming over the next
century. However, the sensitivity of such predictions to known
uncertainties of the models -- that is, the robustness of CO2 warming
predictions -- has not yet been extensively explored.

Exxon Environmental Affairs Programs Manager M.B. Glaser (1982):
Predictions of the climatological impact of a carbon dioxide induced
"greenhouse effect" draw upon various mathematical models to gauge the
temperature increase. The scientific community generally discussed the
impact in terms of doubling of the current carbon dioxide content in
order to get beyond the noise level of the data. We estimate doubling
could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements
projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook. The question of which
predictions and which models best simulate a carbon dioxide-induced
climate change is still being debated by the scientific community. Our
best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could
increase average global temperature by about 1.3 [degrees Celsius] to
3.1 [degrees Celsius].

Exxon Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Director Roger
W. Cohen (1982): 
[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific
consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of
increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result
in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 [plus-or-minus] 1.5)
[degrees Celsius]. The uncertainty in this figure is a result of the
inability of even the most elaborate models to simulate climate in a
totally realistic manner. ... [T]he results of our research are in
accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased
atmospheric CO2 on climate.

Exxon Senior Scientist James F. Black (1978): 
In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the 
most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate 
is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels. A 
doubling of carbon dioxide is estimated to be capable of increasing 
the average global temperature by from 1 [degree] to 3 [degrees Celsius], 
with a 10 [degrees Celsius] rise predicted at the poles. More research is
needed, however, to establish the validity and significance of
predictions with respect to the Greenhouse Effect. It is currently
estimated that mankind has a 5-10 yr. time window to obtain the
necessary information.