"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last 485 Million Years"

[Lynn McGuire]

"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last
485 Million Years"

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."

"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria predictions
have come true."

""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."

"John Kerry back in 2009."

Lynn

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last
485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria predictions
have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousans years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>

bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria
predictions have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

    Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousans years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

We are living in an ice age now. Ice ages are loosely defined as when
one or both poles are frozen. Both poles being frozen like now only
happens during 11% of the ice ages.

Lynn

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria
predictions have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

     Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousand years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

We are living in an ice age now.  Ice ages are loosely defined as when
one or both poles are frozen.  Both poles being frozen like now only
happens during 11% of the ice ages.
Lynn

Well we seem to be ending the Holocene Ice Age within then
next two centuries. But the plagues Dale Pendell forsaw were not
quite as deadly.<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7821813-the-great-bay>
He covers the next 16,000 years and of course the present
heating is resolved by the next Ice Age.

bliss

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria
predictions have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

     Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousand years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

We are living in an ice age now.  Ice ages are loosely defined as when
one or both poles are frozen.  Both poles being frozen like now only
happens during 11% of the ice ages.
Lynn

    Well we seem to be ending the Holocene Ice Age within then
next two centuries. But the plagues Dale Pendell forsaw were not
quite as deadly.<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7821813-the-great-bay>
    He covers the next 16,000 years and of course the present
heating is resolved by the next Ice Age.

15,000 years ago, my location was under 2 miles of ice. This is NOT
the 'coolest time in 485 million years. Just looking at the chart,
you can see an uptick at the very end. That uptick includes the totality
of human civilization.

Yes, we're in an interglacial, and Earth has been warmer for most of
the past. That's irrelevant.

Our culture, and the sources of our food, are all tuned to the climate
of the past 15,000 years. Human activity is warming the planet EXTREMELY
rapidly, compared to earlier warmings. The speed is such that plants
and animals can't evolve and adapt.

10,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was green, similar to the
Great Plains. Warming since then has turned it into a wasteland.
We're on track to do that to our main food-growing areas in the
next 100 years.

Its imperative that we do what we can to nail the global thermostat
to present temperatures.

pt

[r***@rosettacondot.com]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria
predictions have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

     Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousand years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

We are living in an ice age now.  Ice ages are loosely defined as when
one or both poles are frozen.  Both poles being frozen like now only
happens during 11% of the ice ages.
Lynn

    Well we seem to be ending the Holocene Ice Age within then
next two centuries. But the plagues Dale Pendell forsaw were not
quite as deadly.<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7821813-the-great-bay>
    He covers the next 16,000 years and of course the present
heating is resolved by the next Ice Age.

15,000 years ago, my location was under 2 miles of ice. This is NOT
the 'coolest time in 485 million years. Just looking at the chart,
you can see an uptick at the very end. That uptick includes the totality
of human civilization.
Yes, we're in an interglacial, and Earth has been warmer for most of
the past. That's irrelevant.
Our culture, and the sources of our food, are all tuned to the climate
of the past 15,000 years. Human activity is warming the planet EXTREMELY
rapidly, compared to earlier warmings. The speed is such that plants
and animals can't evolve and adapt.
10,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was green, similar to the
Great Plains. Warming since then has turned it into a wasteland.
We're on track to do that to our main food-growing areas in the
next 100 years.
Its imperative that we do what we can to nail the global thermostat
to present temperatures.

Generally correct, but unless the theory has changed extremely recently the
greening and drying of the Sahara is cyclic and has nothing to do with AGW.
Instead it's primarily driven by a 41,000 year periodic change in the Earth's
tilt that shifts the North African Monsoon north and south. When it shifts to
the north the Sahara greens and becomes savannah, to the south it goes back to
desert. The cycle has been going on in the Sahara for millions of years.

Robert

[quadibloc]

Post by Cryptoengineer
15,000 years ago, my location was under 2 miles of ice. This is NOT
the 'coolest time in 485 million years. Just looking at the chart,
you can see an uptick at the very end. That uptick includes the totality
of human civilization.
Yes, we're in an interglacial, and Earth has been warmer for most of
the past. That's irrelevant.
Our culture, and the sources of our food, are all tuned to the climate
of the past 15,000 years. Human activity is warming the planet EXTREMELY
rapidly, compared to earlier warmings. The speed is such that plants
and animals can't evolve and adapt.
10,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was green, similar to the
Great Plains. Warming since then has turned it into a wasteland.
We're on track to do that to our main food-growing areas in the
next 100 years.
Its imperative that we do what we can to nail the global thermostat
to present temperatures.

Thank you for reminding us of the facts.

A typographical error in the pages of the Washington Post does not
change those facts in any way.

I mean, what if some computer hacker caused the Washington Post
to run a story on its front page saying the Earth was flat? Would
that prove the round Earth was a hoax? Obviously not.

John Savard

[Charles Packer]

Post by quadibloc

15,000 years ago, my location was under 2 miles of ice. This is NOT the
'coolest time in 485 million years. Just looking at the chart,
you can see an uptick at the very end. That uptick includes the
totality of human civilization.
Yes, we're in an interglacial, and Earth has been warmer for most of
the past. That's irrelevant.
Our culture, and the sources of our food, are all tuned to the climate
of the past 15,000 years. Human activity is warming the planet
EXTREMELY rapidly, compared to earlier warmings. The speed is such that
plants and animals can't evolve and adapt.
10,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was green, similar to the Great
Plains. Warming since then has turned it into a wasteland.
We're on track to do that to our main food-growing areas in the next
100 years.
Its imperative that we do what we can to nail the global thermostat to
present temperatures.

Thank you for reminding us of the facts.
A typographical error in the pages of the Washington Post does not
change those facts in any way.
I mean, what if some computer hacker caused the Washington Post to run a
story on its front page saying the Earth was flat? Would that prove the
round Earth was a hoax? Obviously not.

I spent some time studying the Post article and the associated
Science articles and decided that the research it cited was a technical
tour de force but had no bearing on the standard model of
contemporary climate change which says that human-caused additions
of CO2 to the atmosphere are driving up the temperature to where
it will be dangerous to humanity if unchecked. So the Post story
looks like a case of opportunism by journalists to snag researchers
who have made a splash with other scientists and induce them to
aid the preaching of journalism on the topic. So I left the
following comment to the Post article:

You might want to go and soak your head after reading this
alarmist article. I wonder to what extent its writers, in
order to get dramatic quotes from the researchers, goosed
them with leading questions. At any rate, a more measured
analysis of the research that is intended for a scientifically
literate audience is here:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads1526

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria
predictions have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

     Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousand years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

We are living in an ice age now.  Ice ages are loosely defined as when
one or both poles are frozen.  Both poles being frozen like now only
happens during 11% of the ice ages.
Lynn

    Well we seem to be ending the Holocene Ice Age within then
next two centuries. But the plagues Dale Pendell forsaw were not
quite as deadly.<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7821813-the-great-bay>
    He covers the next 16,000 years and of course the present
heating is resolved by the next Ice Age.
    bliss

You know, predictions are hard, especially about the future (Niels Bohr).

Lynn

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria
predictions have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

     Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousand years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

We are living in an ice age now.  Ice ages are loosely defined as
when one or both poles are frozen.  Both poles being frozen like now
only happens during 11% of the ice ages.
Lynn

     Well we seem to be ending the Holocene Ice Age within then
next two centuries. But the plagues Dale Pendell forsaw were not
quite as
deadly.<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7821813-the-great-bay>
     He covers the next 16,000 years and of course the present
heating is resolved by the next Ice Age.
     bliss

You know, predictions are hard, especially about the future (Niels Bohr).
Lynn

Well if Dale Pendell or I are wrong then in 16,000 years
feel free to disparage both of us. ;^|
But the Washington Post if it made such an assertion about
the present and the past is clearly wrong according to available
evidence.
bliss

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 19:33:59 -0700, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers
Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousans years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

You don't have to be a geologist to type "When was the last ice age?"
into Google and get the answer "roughly 26,000 to 19,000 years ago"
which of course is a lot less than "last few hundred thousands years".

I've heard the figure 14000-16000 years which is roughly when mankind
first settled the western hemisphere over the Alaska-Siberia land
bridge.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 19:33:59 -0700, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers
Some how i find the Washington Post slip up as lacking
credibility because in the last few Hundred thousans years we
have had Ice Ages which forced humans to develope their social
skills even further.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation>
bliss-who is just a student of such things and unable to throw
scientific credentials around.

You don't have to be a geologist to type "When was the last ice age?"
into Google and get the answer "roughly 26,000 to 19,000 years ago"
which of course is a lot less than "last few hundred thousands years".
I've heard the figure 14000-16000 years which is roughly when mankind
first settled the western hemisphere over the Alaska-Siberia land
bridge.

14-16k years ago is when the ice retreated, and the current interglacial
began.

The current set of glacial and interglacial periods is know as the
Quaternary glaciation, and started about 2.6 million years ago.

pt

[D]

"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last 485
Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria predictions have
come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic
summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."
Lynn

Interesting! Always fun when those cracks in the official narrative
appear, and the rush to hide it or explain it away (yet again)!

I watched a documentary the other day about the fall of the akkadian
empire, and apparently they suspect it was due to the 4.2 kiloyear event.
It turns out that within 230:ish years, nature, (without any CO2) changed
dramatically which led to less rain, which led to food shortage. Estimates
say that the temperature in the region dropped 1-2 degrees C, naturally in
such a short time.

Who would have thought that nature could change so much, without CO2? I
thought that was close to impossible, and that without man, nature only
changes on 10000 year spans. ;)

[William Hyde]

Post by D
I watched a documentary the other day about the fall of the akkadian
empire, and apparently they suspect it was due to the 4.2 kiloyear
event. It turns out that within 230:ish years, nature, (without any CO2)
changed dramatically which led to less rain, which led to food shortage.
Estimates say that the temperature in the region dropped 1-2 degrees C,
naturally in such a short time.

Did it say the global temperature dropped that much? Or was this a
regional event? Regional events of this kind are common. IIRC it is
believed that the Mayans also ran into unfavourable climate change,
though this is not settled. But it's doubtless settled enough for a TV
show.

Post by D
Who would have thought that nature could change so much, without CO2?

I would. And so would literally anybody else who spent some time
reading on the subject.

The global temperature can be changed rapidly by vulcanism. An
eruption like Pinatubo can cool the world for a short time (half a
degree C for the norther hemisphere in this case) but the tail of the
cooling lasts a long time, so with a series of closely spaced eruptions
the cooling can last for decades. One study implies that about 50% of
the little ice age cooling was due to vulcanism.


In the historical records, eras which are very low in tropical volcano
eruption tend to be warm.

Changes in ocean circulation can have a strong impact on regional
climates and can occur quite rapidly, as we may discover later this
century. Ice age climates are even more variable, with the younger
Dryas cooling setting in over less than five years in the Northern
Hemisphere, cooling winters several degrees C, while leaving summers
unaltered. There is some reason to believe that this event was set
off by volcanic cooling. But at the moment that's just an idea.

Solar. While this doesn't seem to ever amount to much, it does exist,
and if it adds to the above, which it may have done in the little ice
age, it can be significant.

But none of these processes is active now.


I

Post by D
thought that was close to impossible, and that without man, nature only
changes on 10000 year spans. ;)

Thus you begin to learn. Keep it up.

William Hyde

[D]

Post by D
I watched a documentary the other day about the fall of the akkadian
empire, and apparently they suspect it was due to the 4.2 kiloyear event.
It turns out that within 230:ish years, nature, (without any CO2) changed
dramatically which led to less rain, which led to food shortage. Estimates
say that the temperature in the region dropped 1-2 degrees C, naturally in
such a short time.

Did it say the global temperature dropped that much? Or was this a regional
event? Regional events of this kind are common. IIRC it is believed that
the Mayans also ran into unfavourable climate change, though this is not
settled. But it's doubtless settled enough for a TV show.

Regional.

Post by D
Who would have thought that nature could change so much, without CO2?

I would. And so would literally anybody else who spent some time reading on
the subject.

You are very special William. I have met many climate _hysterics_ (and
when I say hysterics now, it is because they genuinely think the earth
will be destroyed in 5-10 years) who deny this.

[Chris Buckley]

On 2024-09-28, William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
...

Post by William Hyde
Changes in ocean circulation can have a strong impact on regional
climates and can occur quite rapidly, as we may discover later this
century. Ice age climates are even more variable, with the younger
Dryas cooling setting in over less than five years in the Northern
Hemisphere, cooling winters several degrees C, while leaving summers
unaltered. There is some reason to believe that this event was set
off by volcanic cooling. But at the moment that's just an idea.
Solar. While this doesn't seem to ever amount to much, it does exist,
and if it adds to the above, which it may have done in the little ice
age, it can be significant.
But none of these processes is active now.

Hmm. I thought we had entered a period of solar output actively
affecting climate.

The reduced solar output is very minor and obviously no overall
temperature reduction is occurring now in this time of global warming,
but I did think it was active.

Chris

[William Hyde]

Post by Chris Buckley
...

Post by William Hyde
Changes in ocean circulation can have a strong impact on regional
climates and can occur quite rapidly, as we may discover later this
century. Ice age climates are even more variable, with the younger
Dryas cooling setting in over less than five years in the Northern
Hemisphere, cooling winters several degrees C, while leaving summers
unaltered. There is some reason to believe that this event was set
off by volcanic cooling. But at the moment that's just an idea.
Solar. While this doesn't seem to ever amount to much, it does exist,
and if it adds to the above, which it may have done in the little ice
age, it can be significant.
But none of these processes is active now.

Hmm. I thought we had entered a period of solar output actively
affecting climate.
The reduced solar output is very minor and obviously no overall
temperature reduction is occurring now in this time of global warming,
but I did think it was active.

Correct.

I should have said "sufficiently active". Current changes in solar
output act to cool the planet, though only by a tiny amount.

Various paleoclimatic reconstructions, though not most of them, show
solar variability accounting for more climate change in the past. The
problem being that the proxies used for solar constant change are not
particularly robust, and the more exact knowledge we have in the period
of direct observation does not agree with this view.

As to the current warming the question is academic, as the pattern of
warming shows us clearly that this is not due to an increase in solar
output.

William Hyde

[James Nicoll]

Post by William Hyde
of direct observation does not agree with this view.
As to the current warming the question is academic, as the pattern of
warming shows us clearly that this is not due to an increase in solar
output.

Is this a good time to mention the faint young Sun paradox?

For people unfamiliar with it, is the question of how to
reconcile the young sun being 30% dimmer with the young Earth
having liquid water. All things being equal, the Earth should
have been well below freezing (on average) but it wasn't. So
all things weren't equal.

[William Hyde]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by William Hyde
of direct observation does not agree with this view.
As to the current warming the question is academic, as the pattern of
warming shows us clearly that this is not due to an increase in solar
output.

Is this a good time to mention the faint young Sun paradox?
For people unfamiliar with it, is the question of how to
reconcile the young sun being 30% dimmer with the young Earth
having liquid water. All things being equal, the Earth should
have been well below freezing (on average) but it wasn't. So
all things weren't equal.

Always a fascinating topic for me.

This is not resolved, but the most common idea is that the thick
atmosphere of the young earth, filled with CO2, H20 and possibly other
infrared absorbers (NH3, for example) kept the earth warm. But there is
no consensus on the composition of that atmosphere. Perhaps there
wasn't much in the way of greenhouse gases.

Long ago Dirac came up with an idea, not often mentioned, that certain
fundamental constants of the universe change over time, while
maintaining constant ratios with one another.

One of these constants was G, which according to this idea should
decrease over time. Petr Chylek mentioned this idea to me, and I was
intrigued because solar output varies as G**7 according to a monograph
by A. D. Vernekar.

Using a simple climate model I was able to put an upper limit on the
Dirac change by considering the early earth. If the greenhouse effect
of that atmosphere was zero, a given increase in G would account for
early climates, a larger one would make the earth too warm.

I went through a bit of a career change at the time and the work, though
presented at a number of seminars, was never submitted for publication.
As there is (or was at the time) little interest in Dirac's idea it
would have been difficult to get it in print anyway and more recent ice
ages beckoned.

While looking for some online reference to Dirac's idea I was reminded
yet again of how much Dirac actually did. Even if he had never come up
with the Dirac equation and predicted antimatter, he'd still have been
one of the great scientists of the 20th century.


William Hyde

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by William Hyde

Post by James Nicoll

Post by William Hyde
of direct observation does not agree with this view.
As to the current warming the question is academic, as the pattern of
warming shows us clearly that this is not due to  an increase in solar
output.

Is this a good time to mention the faint young Sun paradox?
For people unfamiliar with it, is the question of how to
reconcile the young sun being 30% dimmer with the young Earth
having liquid water. All things being equal, the Earth should
have been well below freezing (on average) but it wasn't. So
all things weren't equal.

Always a fascinating topic for me.
This is not resolved, but the most common idea is that the thick
atmosphere of the young earth, filled with CO2, H20 and possibly other
infrared absorbers (NH3, for example) kept the earth warm. But there is
no consensus on the composition of that atmosphere.  Perhaps there
wasn't much in the way of greenhouse gases.
Long ago Dirac came up with an idea, not often mentioned, that certain
fundamental constants of the universe change over time, while
maintaining constant ratios with one another.
One of these constants was G, which according to this idea should
decrease over time.  Petr Chylek mentioned this idea to me, and I was
intrigued because solar output varies as G**7 according to a monograph
by A. D. Vernekar.
Using a simple climate model I was able to put an upper limit on the
Dirac change by considering the early earth.    If the greenhouse effect
of that atmosphere was zero, a given increase in G would account for
early climates, a larger one would make the earth too warm.
I went through a bit of a career change at the time and the work, though
presented at a number of seminars, was never submitted for publication.
As there is (or was at the  time) little interest in Dirac's idea it
would have been difficult to get it in print anyway and more recent ice
ages beckoned.
While looking for some online reference to Dirac's idea I was reminded
yet again of how much Dirac actually did.  Even if he had never come up
with the Dirac equation and predicted antimatter, he'd still have been
one of the great scientists of the 20th century.
William Hyde

First we should not call it the Young Earth because that
is a creationist theory. I learned that when I searched on the
term.

Excuse me but did not the Early Earth contribute to it own
heating? One of the reasons that the air was full of water vapor is
that the temperature was higher than the boiling point of water.
The Early Earth was still suffering tremendous imparts as
its orbit intersected those of other massive pieces of the previous
calamitous end of a star that was not too far from Sol.
But as soon as it cooled we got a Snowball Earth. Then
the impact of large planetary sized object which knocked the
Moon out of the earth and into orbit. So the stage was set for
the disasters and extinctions to follow which gave rise eventually
to us, Homo Sapiens aka the Wise Guy. Following further along
the time track to science and technology we end up with us making
the Earth, our rocky cradle too messed up to keep us alive.
Wise guy was a misnomer apparently.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Earth>

bliss

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 19:46:25 -0700, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by William Hyde

Post by James Nicoll

Post by William Hyde
of direct observation does not agree with this view.
As to the current warming the question is academic, as the pattern of
warming shows us clearly that this is not due to  an increase in solar
output.

Is this a good time to mention the faint young Sun paradox?
For people unfamiliar with it, is the question of how to
reconcile the young sun being 30% dimmer with the young Earth
having liquid water. All things being equal, the Earth should
have been well below freezing (on average) but it wasn't. So
all things weren't equal.

Always a fascinating topic for me.
This is not resolved, but the most common idea is that the thick
atmosphere of the young earth, filled with CO2, H20 and possibly other
infrared absorbers (NH3, for example) kept the earth warm. But there is
no consensus on the composition of that atmosphere.  Perhaps there
wasn't much in the way of greenhouse gases.

First we should not call it the Young Earth because that
is a creationist theory. I learned that when I searched on the
term.

Young Earth Creationists believe (or believed) everything was created
in 4004 BC, just as Bishop Ussher computed.

But "the young Earth" is the actual Earth, just very very new.

Many terms have multiple meanings.

[William Hyde]

Post by William Hyde

Post by James Nicoll

Post by William Hyde
of direct observation does not agree with this view.
As to the current warming the question is academic, as the pattern of
warming shows us clearly that this is not due to  an increase in solar
output.

Is this a good time to mention the faint young Sun paradox?
For people unfamiliar with it, is the question of how to
reconcile the young sun being 30% dimmer with the young Earth
having liquid water. All things being equal, the Earth should
have been well below freezing (on average) but it wasn't. So
all things weren't equal.

Always a fascinating topic for me.
This is not resolved, but the most common idea is that the thick
atmosphere of the young earth, filled with CO2, H20 and possibly other
infrared absorbers (NH3, for example) kept the earth warm. But there
is no consensus on the composition of that atmosphere.  Perhaps there
wasn't much in the way of greenhouse gases.
Long ago Dirac came up with an idea, not often mentioned, that certain
fundamental constants of the universe change over time, while
maintaining constant ratios with one another.
One of these constants was G, which according to this idea should
decrease over time.  Petr Chylek mentioned this idea to me, and I was
intrigued because solar output varies as G**7 according to a monograph
by A. D. Vernekar.
Using a simple climate model I was able to put an upper limit on the
Dirac change by considering the early earth.    If the greenhouse
effect of that atmosphere was zero, a given increase in G would
account for early climates, a larger one would make the earth too warm.
I went through a bit of a career change at the time and the work,
though presented at a number of seminars, was never submitted for
publication. As there is (or was at the  time) little interest in
Dirac's idea it would have been difficult to get it in print anyway
and more recent ice ages beckoned.
While looking for some online reference to Dirac's idea I was reminded
yet again of how much Dirac actually did.  Even if he had never come
up with the Dirac equation and predicted antimatter, he'd still have
been one of the great scientists of the 20th century.
William Hyde

    First we should not call it the Young Earth because that
is a creationist theory. I learned that when I searched on the
term.

Some creationists say that the earth is young. We say that it was once
young. We only differ by 4.5 billion years.

    Excuse me but did not the Early Earth contribute to it own
heating? One of the reasons that the air was full of water vapor is
that the temperature was higher than the boiling point of water.
    The Early Earth was still suffering tremendous imparts as
its orbit intersected those of other massive pieces of the previous
calamitous end of a star that was not too far from Sol.

The paradox refers to a time after the late heavy bombardment was over.
The sun was still a young star at that time and about 30% dimmer than it
is today.

You are right that the earth then generated more internal heat than it
does now, but not enough to account for the early warm earth.

    But as soon as it cooled we got a Snowball Earth.

The proposed early earth snowballs are a billion or two years farther
on. The other alleged snowballs are in the era 750-550 million years ago.


The Archean up to the glaciation is also a fascinating period for which
we have tantalizing evidence of something major happening (huge shifts
in carbon isotope ratios) but little idea of exactly what.



Then

the impact of large planetary sized object which knocked the
Moon out of the earth and into orbit.

The impact would have occurred much earlier, in the Hadean eon. Among
other things, any geological evidence from the earlier earth would have
been erased by the impact so if there was a cold interval with
glaciation then we wouldn't know about it.


So the stage was set for

the disasters and extinctions to follow which gave rise eventually
to us, Homo Sapiens aka the Wise Guy. Following further along
the time track to science and technology we end up with us making
the Earth, our rocky cradle too messed up to keep us alive.
Wise guy was a misnomer apparently.

Homo semi-Sapiens?


William Hyde

[William Hyde]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last
485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago. So the above is simply not true.

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."

Anything can be argued. Presenting evidence is another story.

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria predictions
have come true."

Models have predicted since 1965, when they were very primitive indeed
compared to the ones used today, that the earth would warm. And it has
done so. Success.

Models in 1965 predicted that the stratosphere would cool. It has
cooled. And we are aware of no natural process that would result in the
observed cooling. Success. And a very counter intuitive one.

Models from the mid 70s on predicted more warming in high latitudes than
low latitudes. This is observed. Success.

Model from the mid 70s predicted more winter warming than summer. Success.

Models since the 1990s have predicted that one the whole (there will be
exceptions) dry areas will get dryer, wet areas wetter. Success.

And so on.

Post by Lynn McGuire
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."

This was the prediction of a few workers, and never was the consensus,
nor endorsed by IPCC. I am not aware of any GCM simulation that
predicted an ice-free arctic at that time.

"NASA climate researcher Gavin Schmidt wrote in an e-mail to us that
Maslowski's prediction isn't necessarily a communitywide opinion.

"A fair statement would be that some scientists have predicted summer
ice free Arctic Ocean as soon as 2013, but others expect it to happen a
little slower — say 2040-2060," Schmidt wrote."

Stick with the popcorn, Lynn.


William Hyde

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...

So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?

If not, do you have a better graph ?

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one. Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.

Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one. Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website. At least not for conservatives.

Lynn

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
Lynn

The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.

People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.

They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.

Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)

10,000 years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.

We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.

pt

[James Nicoll]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
Lynn

The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.
People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.
They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.
Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)
10,000 years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.
We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.

Another way to look at it is that every kind of human except for one
(so far) ultimately went extinct so we can't say "Oh, well, humans
survived a lot of crap in the past" because most human species
didn't. Granted, Homo Erectus had a pretty good run of two million
years. Modern humans have been around (depending on definition of
modern) anywhere from 300,000 to as little as 60,000 years, so our
track record wrt climate change is not anywhere near as established
as HE's.

[D]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
Lynn

The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.
People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.
They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.
Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)
10,000 years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.
We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.
pt

Actually no, if it was ok 5 million years ago, that tells us something
about today. We have all learned now that the climate has always varied,
and that there's no need for any fear. With the help of technology, we
also have an advantage over other small animals, in that we can survive a
much broader ranger of temperatures.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
Lynn

The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.
People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.
They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.
Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)
10,000  years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.
We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.
pt

Actually no, if it was ok 5 million years ago, that tells us something
about today. We have all learned now that the climate has always varied,
and that there's no need for any fear. With the help of technology, we
also have an advantage over other small animals, in that we can survive
a much broader ranger of temperatures.

Climate has always varied. And: Most species have gone extinct.

We need to change that.

I don't want humans to go extinct, which means we have to keep
climate within the range we know we can handle.

Its not just a matter of whether we, personally, are comfortable.
Our food species also need to be sustained, and they're a lot
more sensitive than we are.

pt

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
Lynn

The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.
People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.
They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.
Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)
10,000  years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.
We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.
pt

Actually no, if it was ok 5 million years ago, that tells us something
about today. We have all learned now that the climate has always varied,
and that there's no need for any fear. With the help of technology, we also
have an advantage over other small animals, in that we can survive a much
broader ranger of temperatures.

Climate has always varied. And: Most species have gone extinct.

Yes! This is often forgotten,

No, it is never forgotten, it is well known by scientists.

Over four point three billion years, it's not even unexpected.

when people whine on about species going
extinct.

Your choice of emotionally loaded verb is noted. And dismissed.

There is legitimate concern about the _rate_ of extinction. Compared
to the rates over the last four billion years, the modern rate is
many times larger.



I think about 94% of the life that ever lived on this planet is

currently extinct, so it is natural and not something which has to be
stopped at every cost.

The _rate_ of extinction is far greater now than at any time
in history (barring certain catestrophic events such as asteroid
impacts).

Post by Cryptoengineer
We need to change that.

It depends. Could be that the return on investment by letting some small
insignificant species Z, in rainforest Y, go extinct is totally worth it.

No, it's not. How do you even compute the RoI for extinction events?

We've never had as much food and as little famine on the planet than we
have today. So looking at the trends, we're actually doing better and
better.

That is not universally true. Where true, it is entirely attributed
to the use of fossil fuels to make fertilizers. Which will, inevitably,
run out. Then what?

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Cryptoengineer
Climate has always varied. And: Most species have gone extinct.

Yes! This is often forgotten,

No, it is never forgotten, it is well known by scientists.
Over four point three billion years, it's not even unexpected.

Wrong again Scott, that's not what I said. You should really work a bit
on your reading comprehension. ;)

Post by Scott Lurndal

when people whine on about species going
extinct.

Your choice of emotionally loaded verb is noted. And dismissed.

Wrong again, it is not. ;)

Post by Scott Lurndal
There is legitimate concern about the _rate_ of extinction. Compared
to the rates over the last four billion years, the modern rate is
many times larger.

Nope.

Post by Scott Lurndal
I think about 94% of the life that ever lived on this planet is

currently extinct, so it is natural and not something which has to be
stopped at every cost.

The _rate_ of extinction is far greater now than at any time
in history (barring certain catestrophic events such as asteroid
impacts).

We're having it better than we ever had, what you say does not change
that. Nature is way more resilient than usenet posters, so just relax
Scott.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Cryptoengineer
We need to change that.

It depends. Could be that the return on investment by letting some small
insignificant species Z, in rainforest Y, go extinct is totally worth it.

No, it's not. How do you even compute the RoI for extinction events?

Depends on the event. It can be anything from trivial, to complex. You,
on the other hand, climate hysteric, refuse to even think about it.

But it is a fact of life, that humans have more value than animals and
plants. Even you believe that, proven by the fact that you live and
breathe in the western world, when the best way to save the climate
would be to dramatically reduce your quality of life and live a medieval
lifestyle as so many fellow hysterics often preach, but never themselves
do.

Post by Scott Lurndal

We've never had as much food and as little famine on the planet than we
have today. So looking at the trends, we're actually doing better and
better.

That is not universally true. Where true, it is entirely attributed
to the use of fossil fuels to make fertilizers. Which will, inevitably,
run out. Then what?

That's not what I said. Read again. Your naive question has been raised
since the dawn of capitalism, and alternatives are always provided by
the market.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 11:45:31 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
Lynn

The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.
People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.
They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.
Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)
10,000  years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.
We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.
pt

Actually no, if it was ok 5 million years ago, that tells us something
about today. We have all learned now that the climate has always varied,
and that there's no need for any fear. With the help of technology, we
also have an advantage over other small animals, in that we can survive
a much broader ranger of temperatures.

Climate has always varied. And: Most species have gone extinct.
We need to change that.

That resembles an attitude (which I do not say that you have) that has
puzzled me for some time: many people who claim to accept Natural
Selection are adamant that this, that, or the other species /must/ be
saved.

Natural Selection, of course, /requires/ that species go extinct so
that better-adapted species can thrive.

This is like efforts a while back (and possibly continuing) to return
a certain patch of urban uncleared ground (it is in a park and
contains a creek that, no doubt, marks the low point of the valley we
are in) to its original condition by removing invasive species.

Which is fine as far as it goes. But by "original condition" they mean
"before the White Man came". Why not "before /any/ humans came"? Why
stop at 150 years or so ago? Why not 10,000 years ago?

Still, it is worth doing, whatever the actual goal is. And most of the
invasive species are a lot more recent that even 150 years.

Post by Cryptoengineer
I don't want humans to go extinct, which means we have to keep
climate within the range we know we can handle.
Its not just a matter of whether we, personally, are comfortable.
Our food species also need to be sustained, and they're a lot
more sensitive than we are.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 11:45:31 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?
If not, do you have a better graph ?

I'm sure you have the ability to find one.  Just remember to restrict
your search to the scientific literature rather than political
entertainment websites.
Remember the _Readers Guide to Periodic Literature_?

That graph comes from the Washington Post which is not a political
entertainment website.  At least not for conservatives.
Lynn

The problem is, it doesn't show useful info, is being used
in a misleading way.
People haven't survived through climate
changes for 485 million years.
They've survived through them for about 2 million, at the
outside. Agricultural society has managed the survive the
climate changes of just the last 10,000.
Here's a chart on a more useful scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
(check the mouseover :-)
10,000  years ago, the Sahara was a grassland, like our Great
Plains. Now, its a wasteland. That took a change of about 2C.
Many of the great grain growing areas of the world could face
the same fate if temperature goes up another 2C.
We need to fix the climate to what's good for humans. What it was
5 million years ago is irrelevant.
pt

Actually no, if it was ok 5 million years ago, that tells us something
about today. We have all learned now that the climate has always varied,
and that there's no need for any fear. With the help of technology, we
also have an advantage over other small animals, in that we can survive
a much broader ranger of temperatures.

Climate has always varied. And: Most species have gone extinct.
We need to change that.

That resembles an attitude (which I do not say that you have) that has
puzzled me for some time: many people who claim to accept Natural
Selection are adamant that this, that, or the other species /must/ be
saved.
Natural Selection, of course, /requires/ that species go extinct so
that better-adapted species can thrive.
This is like efforts a while back (and possibly continuing) to return
a certain patch of urban uncleared ground (it is in a park and
contains a creek that, no doubt, marks the low point of the valley we
are in) to its original condition by removing invasive species.
Which is fine as far as it goes. But by "original condition" they mean
"before the White Man came". Why not "before /any/ humans came"? Why
stop at 150 years or so ago? Why not 10,000 years ago?
Still, it is worth doing, whatever the actual goal is. And most of the
invasive species are a lot more recent that even 150 years.

The species I'm trying to save is my own. But humans don't live in a
sterile Petri dish. We are surrounded by a vast ecosystem, which
supplies us with food, oxygen and much else.

Maintaining the system which maintains us seems a good idea.

Quite aside from that, diverse habitats and biota are aesthetically
pleasing.

pt

[William Hyde]

Post by Paul S Person
That resembles an attitude (which I do not say that you have) that has
puzzled me for some time: many people who claim to accept Natural
Selection are adamant that this, that, or the other species /must/ be
saved.
Natural Selection, of course, /requires/ that species go extinct so
that better-adapted species can thrive.
This is like efforts a while back (and possibly continuing) to return
a certain patch of urban uncleared ground (it is in a park and
contains a creek that, no doubt, marks the low point of the valley we
are in) to its original condition by removing invasive species.

In the first place, the fact that evolution is real doesn't mean we
should derive our ethics from it.

Gravity is real, but you would certainly do what you could to save
someone who is falling.

And if a species is going extinct because of our actions, that should at
least give us pause. Even at the purely materialistic level.


William Hyde

[William Hyde]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the
Last 485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-
admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/

The earth was four degrees C colder at the peak of the ice age 21,000
years ago.   So the above is simply not true.

...
So the little jog down before present time does not cover the 4 C drop ?

I've no idea why you think that is a relevant question.

We are not now at the "coolest point in the last 485 million years"
because it was 4C cooler 21,000 years ago.

What's hard to understand about that? The claim made in your original
post is unequivocally false.

For that matter it was also cooler about 140,000 years ago, and at each
of the preceding glacial maxima going back 800,000 years.

Post by Lynn McGuire
If not, do you have a better graph ?

It's a wonderful graph.

But if you want to examine climate in the era in which humans are
actually present, one with ticks considerably less than ten million
years apart would seem more useful.

William Hyde

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:12:09 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last
485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria predictions
have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."

How ironic given the Canadian navy is buying submarines for the first
itme in 30 years to patrol the Arctic...

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:12:09 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last
485 Million Years"
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/
"Arguably, the Earth can be considered in a C02 famine."
"Finally, it’s good to remember none of the climate-hysteria predictions
have come true."
""In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free
Arctic summer."
"John Kerry back in 2009."

How ironic given the Canadian navy is buying submarines for the first
itme in 30 years to patrol the Arctic...

The USA has been sending nuclear submarines under the Arctic ice cap
since 1958. It is not anything new.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220503-the-record-breaking-dive-under-the-arctic-ice
and

https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/oj8vjs/nuclear_submarine_surfaced_through_the_ice_of_the/

Lynn

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:30:05 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by The Horny Goat
How ironic given the Canadian navy is buying submarines for the first
itme in 30 years to patrol the Arctic...

The USA has been sending nuclear submarines under the Arctic ice cap
since 1958. It is not anything new.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220503-the-record-breaking-dive-under-the-arctic-ice
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/oj8vjs/nuclear_submarine_surfaced_through_the_ice_of_the/

I'm all too aware of that and know it has therefore created issues of
national sovereignity. As a Canadian that concerns me.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:30:05 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by The Horny Goat
How ironic given the Canadian navy is buying submarines for the first
itme in 30 years to patrol the Arctic...

The USA has been sending nuclear submarines under the Arctic ice cap
since 1958. It is not anything new.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220503-the-record-breaking-dive-under-the-arctic-ice
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/oj8vjs/nuclear_submarine_surfaced_through_the_ice_of_the/

I'm all too aware of that and know it has therefore created issues of
national sovereignity. As a Canadian that concerns me.

If they do so with Canadian permission, its isn't a problem.

If they stay more that 12 nautical miles from the coast, and don't
engage in resource harvesting within 200 (the exclusive economic
zone), they're also fine, even without permission.

pt

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:22:29 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:30:05 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by The Horny Goat
How ironic given the Canadian navy is buying submarines for the first
itme in 30 years to patrol the Arctic...

The USA has been sending nuclear submarines under the Arctic ice cap
since 1958. It is not anything new.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220503-the-record-breaking-dive-under-the-arctic-ice
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/oj8vjs/nuclear_submarine_surfaced_through_the_ice_of_the/

I'm all too aware of that and know it has therefore created issues of
national sovereignity. As a Canadian that concerns me.

If they do so with Canadian permission, its isn't a problem.
If they stay more that 12 nautical miles from the coast, and don't
engage in resource harvesting within 200 (the exclusive economic
zone), they're also fine, even without permission.

That's not the view of the Canadian government which has lots of
islands in the Arctic that are more than 12 miles apart (or 24 from
island to island). Both Russia and China are known to be probing in
the western Arctic and the main government fear is oil leaks or spills
since ships of the sort that can deal with spills are often hundreds
of miles away.

And as you probably know, there's a long term dispute between the US
and Canada in the north since Canada considers the line of the
Alaska/Yukon border northwards Canadian waters even well beyond 12 or
200 miles. During the Cold War the US didn't mind since Canada did
patrol these waters primarily against Soviet submarines - since the
Russians don't do as much in the Arctic these days compared to
pre-1991 .... but 30 years ago China never went into the Arctic while
now they do and Canada monitors by satellite those that do.

[Mad Hamish]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 21:12:09 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last
485 Million Years"

It doesn't, and you should be ashamed of yourself for reposting such
bullshit

Post by Lynn McGuire
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/09/washington-post-accidentally-admits-earth-at-coolest-point-in-the-last-485-million-years/