[JLindgaard]

Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.

 And yet historical evidence has shown the global temperature has risen as quickly.
https://news.osu.edu/current-melting-of-greenlands-ice-mimics-1920s-1940s-event/

 Hopefully you will not discredit a geologist who has actually researched this. It's not like we're
discussing Geo-sciences.

 For fun @Bored chemist, between 1945 and 1978 is when surface nuclear testing was done.
It started with 2 atomic bombs and evolved into thermonuclear bombs in the name of science.
And yet when bombarding the atmosphere with radiation from such bombs the global temperature remained consistent which it never does.
 The consistent temperature for 30+ years is an anomaly. Before and after bomb testing the global temperature changes.
 A link to some basic info on nuclear testing; https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/test-sites/testing-chronology.html
 With this, what was underground and what was surface testing? Testing eventually turned underground so data can be pointed towards that. People being burned because the wind blew made that change necessary. And compare that to any global warming graph.
 Just an FYI, because this is on the internet it is common knowledge everyone knows. How to explain 30+ years of consistent weather? No one has offered a reason.

[Bored chemist]

 For fun @Bored chemist, between 1945 and 1978 is when surface nuclear testing was done.
It started with 2 atomic bombs and evolved into thermonuclear bombs in the name of science.
And yet when bombarding the atmosphere with radiation from such bombs the global temperature remained consistent which it never does.
 The consistent temperature for 30+ years is an anomaly. Before and after bomb testing the global temperature changes.
 A link to some basic info on nuclear testing; https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/test-sites/testing-chronology.html
 With this, what was underground and what was surface testing? Testing eventually turned underground so data can be pointed towards that. People being burned because the wind blew made that change necessary. And compare that to any global warming graph.
 Just an FYI, because this is on the internet it is common knowledge everyone knows. How to explain 30+ years of consistent weather? No one has offered a reason.

Be quiet please; the grown-ups are talking.

[Bored chemist]

And then the Earth's position relative to the Sun will add to that as well.

Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.

[alancalverd]

Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.

But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?

[Bored chemist]

Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.

But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?

So, when was it last not

Pretty close to 93 million miles

[The Spoon]

Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.

But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?

So you are claiming that the earth's orbital distance from the sun changes rapidly?

[alancalverd]

From earthdate.org

Today, the Earth’s orbital ellipticity is nearly circular at 0.0167, but that still causes 6% more insolation during Earth’s closest approach to the Sun than when it is farthest away.
In ~200,000 years, when Earth’s orbit is at its most elliptical point, the difference in insolation between the closest and farthest approaches will be around 23%.

Depends on your definition of rapid.

[JLindgaard]

Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.

But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?

 I explain that on my website. http://climate-cycling.com/
In basic terms melting glaciers changes the Earth's moment of inertia. Melting glaciers allow
for tectonic plate lift which slows the North Pacific Current and the Gulf Stream. Normal climate
variance is almost always in the northern latitudes.
 What needs to be considered is if water absorbs and releases heat based on how fast or slow
it is flowing. If so then something similar to a wind chill effect would need to be considered as well.
And if you consider the Gulf Stream is slowing and there are now heat waves in Spain and France,
is the Gulf Stream dumping conserved heat content into the atmosphere?

[alancalverd]

Some of that is almost rational.

[Bored chemist]

Depends on your definition of rapid.

200,000 years isn't a credible definition of rapid.

[alancalverd]

In geological terms, it does seem to align with some very spectacular climatic phenomena on a fairly short timescale, like 0.005% of the life of the planet.

[JLindgaard]

Some of that is almost rational.

 From Jason Box of Ohio State University;
https://news.osu.edu/current-melting-of-greenlands-ice-mimics-1920s-1940s-event/

 Warming actually started about 1910. The waters adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel (66º north latitude) suddenly warmed in the 1920's. There were no seismographs used at that time. The narwhal (whale, I think it is also called a white whale) which likes cold arctic waters migrated to the Hudson Bay.
 Waters warming and cooling around Greenland have such a change about 10 years after a magnitude 6.0 earthquake or greater. This suggests deep sea vents either opening or closing. When ice ages end, geologically speaking it happens quickly. When moving towards an ice age, that happens slowly with periods of warming while the orbit becomes more elliptical because no ice age type glaciers to significantly change the Earth's moment of inertia.
 If you have about 15 minutes to read a scientific report; https://collections.dartmouth.edu/arctica-beta/html/EA03-07.html

[JLindgaard]

 This opinion of ice core researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen is basically my Rosetta Stone. It made sense of different factors that could influence climate change.
 It is only my opinion that he mentions CO2 so his research will not be dismissed. My opinion is based on when he says that;
However in the North during the ice age climate was also subjected to fast climate oscillations, i.e. a flip-flop from cold to very cold conditions. This flip-flop or bipolar see saw continued to occur during the slow and gradual warming from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago. In Europe and Greenland there was a flip 14,700 years ago which gave Europe almost present day climate. Then 12,700 years ago the climate in Europe and Greenland flopped and reverted back to arctic conditions for 1000 years.
https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/

 When you consider it is warming under Antarctica, this article cites the geology under the ice.
 quote >>
Geothermal heat flow of the Antarctic continent is one of the essential geophysical parameters for both delineating and identifying tectonic and geodynamic features and processes, and improving the parameterization of basal conditions in ice-flow dynamic models
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3 << end quote
 And then there is this;
quote; The Amundsen Sea Embayment is underlain by the eastern branches of the West Antarctic Rift System, which extends from the Ross Sea to the Amundsen Sea and Bellingshausen Sea sectors of West Antarctica9,10,11. Lithospheric and crustal properties, such as thin crust, thin elastic lithospheric thickness, and high uplift rates, as well as interpreted tectonic and magmatic features, such as individual rift basins, fault systems, and young volcanic activity, coincide with the presently observed largest ice mass loss in Antarctica (outside the northern Antarctic Peninsula) by rapid thinning and retreat of the Pine Island, Thwaites, Pope, and other glaciers in the embayment12,13,14.
end quote

 Can the weight of the ice on Antarctica affect thin tectonic plates and allow for faults in the tectonic plates beneath it?
Basically what could be happening in the Arctic to a lesser extent. And because I'm me, if the amount of gasses and particles in the atmosphere below the tropopause push it higher, could that increase the global temperature when coupled with a depleted ozone layer? And would that allow for more extreme weather events? Those events require more water vapor in the atmosphere and over 90% of the excess heat in the warming climate is found in the oceans.
 The experiment I am pursuing is because water absorbs 100% of UV radiation that reaches it.

[Bored chemist]

orbit becomes more elliptical because no ice age type glaciers to significantly change the Earth's moment of inertia.

Tosh.

[championoftruth (OP)]

You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.

You are the claimant. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.

constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory

Until you can supply the evidence that something sinister is going on, calling it a conspiracy theory is justified.

not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.

That doesn't mean that Bill Gates is making organizations falsify climate change data. You need to supply evidence for that. Him giving donations does not count as such evidence. What you need is evidence for sinister intent. Please supply us with such evidence.

The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.

That's called cherry-picking: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.

Link?

And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.

Link?

Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !

Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !


They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered  its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?

You're claiming they can't be trusted because they spend a lot of money? I'm afraid I don't understand how that follows.

Well well well. More evidence that current weather and temperature measurements and forecasts are based on incomplete data and neglect so many factors in the pathetic desperate race to get self validation for CC to keep the money flowing into vested interests


Look:-

Read and Weep.


https://www.livescience.com/honeybees-electrify-air-more-than-thunderstorms?utm_campaign=368B3745-DDE0-4A69-A2E8-62503D85375D

[Kryptid]

Non-sequitur. Bees aren't going to make the whole planet warm up (especially since their population  has been in decline. If bees were responsible for global warming, then temperatures should be dropping in step with their population.)

[paul cotter]

Nonsense. 100v/m to 1000v/m is nowhere near what an active thunderhead produces. 50kv/m is what is normally produced by an overhead thunderstorm.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Non-sequitur. Bees aren't going to make the whole planet warm up (especially since their population  has been in decline. If bees were responsible for global warming, then temperatures should be dropping in step with their population.)

over geological time scales?

The temperature measurements are false and made to fit the narrative of CC


PROOF:-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis

[championoftruth (OP)]

Nonsense. 100v/m to 1000v/m is nowhere near what an active thunderhead produces. 50kv/m is what is normally produced by an overhead thunderstorm.

MORE PROOF data being falsified.

https://stories.uea.ac.uk/the-story-behind-the-trick/

and the mindset of these 'scientists'

[championoftruth (OP)]

In geological terms, it does seem to align with some very spectacular climatic phenomena on a fairly short timescale, like 0.005% of the life of the planet.

Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'. So this proves more of cc are working to an agenda.

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Climate scientist Michael Mann blasted the release of new leaked emails and documents taken from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit as "truly pathetic" and a "shameless effort to manufacture a false controversy" on Tuesday (Nov. 22)

Mann, along with other prominent climate scientists, features in the emails, which consists of conversations among researchers about data and public relations. A previous leak in 2009 released more than 1,000 emails in an episode dubbed "Climategate." According to the University of East Anglia (UEA), the current data dump, if genuine, appears to be culled from emails taken at the same time as the original Climategate documents.

Climate-change skeptics have pointed to the emails as evidence that researchers were manipulating data to make global warming look more serious than it is.

https://www.livescience.com/17151-climategate-emails-michael-mann.html