Time to Ask WHAT TEMPERATURE IS PERFECT for the average on Earth?

When your data you think is the data, you show me something with less than 3C of change and the Models STILL get it wrong even with the results known to make the model, is what I see.

Keep your small range of data. It is USELESS in the statistical realm it is noise on the scale. if the Temps were always within 20 C or even 30 C. 1.5 C would matter but it is between - 89 C (1983) to about 57 C in (1913) just google those please.

a reply to: Justoneman

Your deliberate approach forgets that Sun, the one you pointed out that dumps gigawatts is #1 on why we are warm or cold.

I don't forget the Sun, but I know that its output has not changed enough to account for the rise in temperatures.

You cant tell me a ideal Average Temp can you?

Meaningless question. What matters is the change in temperature, and the rate at which it changes.

You probably think there is an ideal ice coverage the Earth is supposed to have ?

Not really. But I think that decreasing sea ice will decrease Arctic albedo and cause more rapid temperature increases there. I think that decreasing glacial ice will cause sea levels to rise and this will impact coastal populations adversely. I think that both are likely to cause changes in ocean circulation patterns which will have widespread climate effects.

You ignore good data about magma AND CO2 to spew the UN unmitigated bull snip!

I addressed both magma and CO2. I think the notion that something that has been happening for millions of years, 10s of miles below the surface, is causing the current warming is absurd. I think the notion that an article about the effects of CMEs on the thermosphere indicates that CO2 has a cooling effect in the lower atmosphere is equally absurd.

If poo pooing the magma data and the CO2 report about energy release to Space isn't ignoring it one way or another, I need a new definition.
The magma is rising and it periodically, important word, peals off a blob that floats to the surface so YEA, it is causation. I think the Solar cycle makes the blobs. That along with various other factors in this Cycle of Earth that create Ice ages, we are still in, and Warming periods that we need to melt the Ice and create more arable land.

global temperature trends 2500B.C. to 2040 A.D.
The evidence clearly shows the climate has a fluid history and isn't changing because of us anytime soon. Climate change due to humans is just pure ignorance based on historical data .....

Would do a screen dump of the 78 major temperature swings but current device unable

a reply to: MetalThunder

Nice to see someone can think outside of last century being the only data set that matters. Clearly huge cycles. Thanks for your input.

When the seeds of the local climate can germinate (not too cold) then mature until those new plants produce the next generation as seeds (not too hot). That's the only thing that matters to ALL LIFE, plant and animal, on the planet.

a reply to: MetalThunder

That chart is a bit deceptive. The vertical axis doesn't seem to have any scale, for one thing. It also implies that events like the medieval warm period and little ice age involved global temperatures, this is not well established. They don't seem to provide sources for the data they used.

But the chart does say:

Whenever solar radiation has decreased and volcanic activity has increased, global temperatures suddenly plummet

That, at least, makes sense.


Is Cliff Harris actually a climatologist at all?

Why did you recently begin writing about chemtrails, that the government is spraying chemicals in the sky?

Because I couldn't deny what was going on. I was having doctors call me and saying, 'I'm seeing patients with their urine and hair samples and blood samples with all these heavy metals. It's got to be coming from the air. It's not leaching up from the ground. It's not like radon. It's falling from the air.

www.cdapress.com...

a reply to: Phage

You are totally deceptive Phage. I can tell by the fact you do not understand Chemistry such as electromagnetic attraction of atoms and molecules that if you do know about, pretend is not so. That can be found in Page 73 of Hawking's A Brief History in Time; chapter 5, that you probably read and have on your bookshelf.

originally posted by: tkwasny
When the seeds of the local climate can germinate (not too cold) then mature until those new plants produce the next generation as seeds (not too hot). That's the only thing that matters to ALL LIFE, plant and animal, on the planet.

Many seeds will not grow unless there is a cold spell and obviously die without the warmth and water. That should demonstrate the range of temps the Earth goes thru by the fact biological niches are established and species come and go with the cycles.

a reply to: Justoneman

Electromagnetic attraction as applied to chemistry is a pretty simple concept. Opposite charges attract. Electrons are attracted to positive ions, for example.

That can be found in Page 73 of Hawkin's A Brief Moment in Time; chapter 5, that you probably read and have on your bookshelf.

I don't have that book, so I looked it up. I found two, but neither one is by Hawkin, or Hawking for that matter.
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Justoneman

This is a question I've asked numerous times but none of the climate change alarmist have been able to answer. The way climate change is touted, you'd think scientist have an optimal temperature in mind.

We all know the earth was warmer in the past, so who is to say that we aren't simply going back to that baseline?

The other question I always ask is why is it a bad thing? We know warmer climates can be more fertile, so again, why is it is bad thing?

I am glad you asked. Since it isn't a quick answer there is an excellent video available that will explain just why it is a bad idea.

In case you can't watch I will point out two main points. The rainforest-like temps on land may not be bad for Humanity, but the Hot tub like ocean temps around the equator definitely would be.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Electromagnetic attraction as applied to chemistry is a pretty simple concept. Opposite charges attract. Electrons are attracted to positive ions, for example.

That can be found in Page 73 of Hawkin's A Brief Moment in Time; chapter 5, that you probably read and have on your bookshelf.

I don't have that book, so I looked it up. I found two, but neither one is by Hawkin, or Hawking for that matter.
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...

Correction made YOU need to study.

originally posted by: tkwasny
When the seeds of the local climate can germinate (not too cold) then mature until those new plants produce the next generation as seeds (not too hot). That's the only thing that matters to ALL LIFE, plant and animal, on the planet.

So long as the bees aren't dead and we don't cause desertification by exporting water or using it unwisely.

a reply to: Justoneman

Oh. That book. Chapter 5....

Says that opposite charges attract. Isn't that what I said?

a reply to: Phage

I was trying to explain it to you a few threads over time about it but you are arguing against me on it. The dynamics of water being Electromagnetic YOU challenged.

a reply to: Justoneman

I was trying to explain it to you a few threads over time about it but you are arguing against me on it.

I remember.

You were trying to tell us that the atmosphere is held in place by magnetic attraction. I said that wouldn't work because, unless a gas is ionized it isn't affected by magnetism at all.

Do you want to repeat the whole thing? Ok.

I pointed out that it is gravity which keeps the atmosphere in place and pointed out, by way of example, that even though Venus does not have a planetary magnetic field, it has a very thick atmosphere.

The dynamics of water being Electromagnetic YOU challenged.

Oh, that one. I remember that too. Same thing applies, sort of. Water is not attracted to a magnet.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

I was trying to explain it to you a few threads over time about it but you are arguing against me on it.

I remember.

You were trying to tell us that the atmosphere is held in place by magnetic attraction. I said that wouldn't work because, unless a gas is ionized it isn't affected by magnetism at all.

Do you want to repeat the whole thing? Ok.

I pointed out that it is gravity which keeps the atmosphere in place and pointed out, by way of example, that even though Venus does not have a planetary magnetic field, it has a very thick atmosphere.

The dynamics of water being Electromagnetic YOU challenged.

Oh, that one. I remember that too. Same thing applies, sort of. Water is not attracted to a magnet.

Nope, I was talking about the Poles moving and the water cycle being moved to the new Magnetic Pole.

Your troll is showing again.

a reply to: Justoneman

Nope, I was talking about the Poles moving and the water cycle being moved to the new Magnetic Pole.

Right. And I said that doesn't make any sense.

Your troll is showing again.

Are you saying that you didn't say the atmosphere is held by Earth's magnetic field?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Nope, I was talking about the Poles moving and the water cycle being moved to the new Magnetic Pole.

Right. And I said that doesn't make any sense.

Right because you dont want it to connect Electromagnet propertys found on Page 73 i will say again and The new location of Magnetic north.

a reply to: Justoneman

Here's a little experiment you can do.

Get a dish of water. You can even put some salt in it so it's more like seawater. Now get a magnet, a strong one if you like but remember that the Earth's magnetic field is actually very weak, far weaker than a refrigerator magnet.

See how much you can get that water to move by using that magnet.


There are a number of things that affect the way water moves in the ocean. Magnetism is not one of them.